From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21416 invoked by alias); 22 May 2012 23:29:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 21405 invoked by uid 22791); 22 May 2012 23:29:05 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from na3sys009aog127.obsmtp.com (HELO na3sys009aog127.obsmtp.com) (74.125.149.107) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 May 2012 23:28:47 +0000 Received: from hub3.qnx.com ([209.226.137.86]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob127.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT7whK7XUFr7V3fLyy7I3AunIXyisLjye@postini.com; Tue, 22 May 2012 16:28:47 PDT Received: by hub3.qnx.com (Postfix, from userid 32767) id 13B256C51B1; Tue, 22 May 2012 19:28:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from EXHTS1.ott.qnx.com (exhts1 [10.222.2.110]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub3.qnx.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D0586C51AE; Tue, 22 May 2012 19:28:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.222.96.215] (10.222.96.215) by qnx.com (10.222.2.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.283.3; Tue, 22 May 2012 19:27:49 -0400 Message-ID: <4FBC2127.9030406@qnx.com> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 23:29:00 -0000 From: Aleksandar Ristovski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves 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> <4FBC0B45.6050204@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4FBC0B45.6050204@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed 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/msg00856.txt.bz2 On 12-05-22 05:55 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > 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. In my case, translation happens in remote-nto.c which is our remote target. (our functional equivalent of gdbserver does not really know about gdb's enum target_signal). > >> 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. > Fine by me. (FWIW, I like renaming enum target_signal to gdb_signal; it will clear up some confusion).