Re: [0/2] Inspect extra signal information

Mark Kettenis
2009-02-02T20:49:19Z

> From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 14:42:00 +0000
>
> Hi guys, I'm looking at this again.
>
> Given the argument that with this patch, the siginfo_t type before the signal
> is delivered is the the same as what is seen on the signal handler, when
> the signal is delivered to the inferior inferior, do you still think I
> should change the type, or are you OK with how things are?

I have no real issues with using the obfuscated type names. Just
thought it was a bit ugly and thought users might prefer the
unobfuscated names. But since I don't use Linux all that much, I
don't really care.