From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16049 invoked by alias); 21 May 2012 22:48:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 16039 invoked by uid 22791); 21 May 2012 22:48:45 -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 relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 May 2012 22:48:32 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1SWbOx-0000ez-Gd from Maciej_Rozycki@mentor.com ; Mon, 21 May 2012 15:48:31 -0700 Received: from SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([137.202.0.104]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 21 May 2012 15:48:30 -0700 Received: from [172.30.0.105] (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Mon, 21 May 2012 23:48:28 +0100 Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 22:48:00 -0000 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Michael Eager CC: Pedro Alves , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: MIPS Linux signals In-Reply-To: <4FBAB948.7000808@eagerm.com> Message-ID: References: <4FB850CA.7090701@eagerm.com> <4FBAB500.7010104@redhat.com> <4FBAB948.7000808@eagerm.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" 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/msg00798.txt.bz2 On Mon, 21 May 2012, Michael Eager wrote: > > BTW, I wouldn't bother with gdbarch_target_signal_to_host. Nothing ever > > calls it. > > I hadn't noticed that. I thought that it was called to translate > the signal number when sent to the target. Instead, target_signal_to_host() > is called. Shall we drop the unused gdbarch API so as to avoid further confusion then? Shouldn't target_signal_from_host be renamed to something closer to what it really does, e.g. signal_from_target? It's not that host signals really ever matter unless host == target in which case they're still target signals too (this observation applies to gdbserver as well). Maciej