From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
To: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@redhat.com>
Cc: Pierre Muller <pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr>,
"'GDB Patches'" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Add new internal variable $_signo
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 20:36:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51BB7B58.9030007@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m3zjuswp4k.fsf@redhat.com>
On 06/14/2013 06:58 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
> Hi Pierre,
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> On Friday, June 14 2013, Pierre Muller wrote:
>
>> Is it that I didn't understand the patch correctly or
>> do you use the GDB signal number in infrun.c
>> while you use the native signal integer value in the
>> corelow.c case?
>
> Yes, you are right.
>
>> Aren't those two values sometimes different?
>
> They probably are in some cases.
>
>> Wouldn't it be more consistent to only use the GDB internal number?
>
> Hm, now that you raised the question, I am wondering. I believe it is
> more consistent to use the GDB internal number when we are printing
> something, yeah.
>
> However, in the $_signo case, we are actually displaying the number
> itself, so your comment applies to my patch, but backwards: I should
> actually be converting the GDB internal number to the actual signal
> number on infrun.c.
>
>> In fact, this "inconsistency" is not specific to your patch,
>> the siggy from corelow.c is printed out, while other signals are always
>> first converted to GDB enum values before being printed (and apparently not
>> in
>> integer form but using the gdb_signal_to_name function.
>>
>> Shouldn't we use gdb_signal_to_name (sig) in core_open
>> and set $_signo also to sig?
>
> I don't think $_signo should be set to "sig", it should remain "siggy".
> What should happen (IIUC everything) is that the infrun.c uses should be
> converted to the actual signal number (by using gdb_signal_to_host).
gdb_signal_to_host is the fallback (and having a fallback is sort of a
hack). The right signal number is the target's not the host's. We
have gdbarch_gdb_signal_from_target for the opposite direction, but not
gdbarch_gdb_signal_to_target... Having to bake the target OS's signal
numbers into GDB is a bit unfortunate, though we could get around it
at some point if we wanted by extending the RSP, and/or adding a python
hook.
--
Pedro Alves
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-14 20:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-14 2:39 Sergio Durigan Junior
2013-06-14 7:49 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-06-16 6:08 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2013-06-14 8:59 ` Mark Kettenis
2013-06-14 9:37 ` Pierre Muller
2013-06-14 17:59 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2013-06-14 20:36 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2013-06-15 6:46 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2013-06-17 17:02 ` Pedro Alves
2013-06-14 17:58 ` Pedro Alves
2013-06-16 5:57 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2013-06-16 6:25 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2013-06-17 17:20 ` Pedro Alves
2013-07-17 18:41 ` Tom Tromey
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=51BB7B58.9030007@redhat.com \
--to=palves@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr \
--cc=sergiodj@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox