From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20151 invoked by alias); 22 May 2012 21:55:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 20140 invoked by uid 22791); 22 May 2012 21:55:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 May 2012 21:55:32 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4MLtKVY018724 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 22 May 2012 17:55:20 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4MLtHca012052; Tue, 22 May 2012 17:55:18 -0400 Message-ID: <4FBC0B45.6050204@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 21:55:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Aleksandar Ristovski CC: "Maciej W. Rozycki" , Michael Eager , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: MIPS Linux signals References: <4FB850CA.7090701@eagerm.com> <4FBAB500.7010104@redhat.com> <4FBAB948.7000808@eagerm.com> <4FBB712F.2030604@redhat.com> <4FBBE97B.5040400@qnx.com> In-Reply-To: <4FBBE97B.5040400@qnx.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-05/txt/msg00851.txt.bz2 On 05/22/2012 08:31 PM, Aleksandar Ristovski wrote: > On 12-05-22 06:57 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> Aleksandar, we're discussing gdbarch_target_signal_from_host and >> gdbarch_target_signal_to_host. It turns out that uses to either of those >> were never added to GDB. gdbarch_target_signal_FROM_host's purpose is clear, >> and we're about to add a (new) use to fix the same situation you ran into at the >> time (cross core debugging). I'm wondering if you ever found a use for >> gdbarch_target_signal_TO_host that we should consider, though. >> > > The API was added to introduce consistency between gdb's view of target's numeric signal values and actual > numerical signal values of the target. In general case, they should *not* be viewed as the same, but rather > as distinct numeric sets which happen to have common names. When cross-examining a core this becomes very > obvious, but it is also very obvious when debugging remote target which has different numerical values for signals. > > I use both from_host and to_host. I'm confused on the "when debugging remote target which has different numerical values for signals" part, because the target is not supposed to send anything but the generic "enum target_signal" back to GDB core. The core should never need to do such translation with any target other than the core target. > That being said, I'm not sure why I never submitted actual uses for nto target... I have it in our repository. > > > Looking at the code now, I see why. I use it in our remote target (we have our own) and thus perform translation on-the-fly. Gdb receives correct GDB version as well as target (when gdb sends it). So it sounds like there's no real use for the gdbarch method in _common_ code then, right? If that's the case, we should zap it from the FSF tree until we find such a use. -- Pedro Alves