This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch 1/9]#2 Rename `enum target_signal' to target_signal_t
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>, Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:18:30 -0700
- Subject: Re: [patch 1/9]#2 Rename `enum target_signal' to target_signal_t
- References: <E1Oq55N-0006ia-B0@fencepost.gnu.org> <20100830140814.GE2986@adacore.com> <20100831182829.GA16136@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
> I would prefer gdb_target_signal_t or also gdb_target_signal.
>
> Is one of those approved?
I've just realize that this specific patch really only renames
the type, in addition to adding a typedef.
I'm just wondering why this is actually useful to you. I would have
thought that we could avoid this patch entirely, and then let the
next patch which introduces the gdb_target_signal as a struct just
update all uses of the enum type. Once the struct has been introduced,
we could do a rename if we feel that a better name of the enum can
be found - I think that doing the rename would produce a patch
that is smaller if done after introducing the struct wrapper first.
Just some thoughts...
--
Joel