From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19604 invoked by alias); 7 Aug 2013 20:54:56 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 19595 invoked by uid 89); 7 Aug 2013 20:54:55 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Aug 2013 20:54:53 +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 r77KsiIB031454 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 7 Aug 2013 16:54:45 -0400 Received: from psique ([10.3.113.15]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r77KsfEj010402 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 7 Aug 2013 16:54:43 -0400 From: Sergio Durigan Junior To: Doug Evans Cc: GDB Patches , Tom Tromey Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Implement gdbarch_gdb_signal_{to,from}_target References: <1374869594-16965-1-git-send-email-sergiodj@redhat.com> X-URL: http://www.redhat.com Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 20:54:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Doug Evans's message of "Sat, 27 Jul 2013 10:57:38 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00216.txt.bz2 On Saturday, July 27 2013, Doug Evans wrote: > Hi. Hi. Sorry for the delay. > I reviewed all the patches. > Except for a few nits pointed out in some of the patches, the set is > ok with me. Thanks. > As a sanity check, did you do an enable-targets=all build? Yes, I always build my patches this way :-). > I gather there is a use for gdbarch_gdb_signal_to_target coming, so no > worries there. Yep. > In older times one couldn't use "signal" as a variable name to avoid a > possible collision with a system header defining a macro signal. I > see record-full.c uses "signal" so perhaps we no longer have to deal > with that, but heads up. Hm, I wasn't aware of such constraint. Anyway, since there is a precedence, then I won't bother changing. > [fwiw, and this is just a side discussion, not meant to block the > patch or anything ... > This is an example of the kind of thing that I wish existed in a > library anyone could use. > Yeah, we're converting to/from GDB_FOO, but I can imagine it being > useful to multiple tools.] Sounds nice, indeed. Weekend project, maybe? :-). -- Sergio