This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch] enum target_signal vs. int host_signal
- From: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
- To: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Cc: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:44:39 +0100
- Subject: Re: [patch] enum target_signal vs. int host_signal
- References: <20100724114208.GA8491@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
On Saturday 24 July 2010 12:42:08, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> Besides the change below I find some incorrect usage of gdb/gdbserver/target.h
> struct thread_resume -> sig. But one should decide first which kind of signal
> it should be.
Currently, host signal. I too see one place in server.c that got that
mixed up. And win32-low.c uses TARGET_SIGNAL_0 when it shouldn't.
I guess it would be a bit cleaner if thread_resume->sig was a
gdb signal instead, so that core gdbserver only handles gdb signals
(as is, there's a bit of a mix, since struct target_waitstatus holds
a gdb signal), though that's a larger change than just fixing the current
misuses.
> gdb/
> 2010-07-24 Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
>
> * linux-nat.c (linux_nat_do_thread_registers): Convert STOP_SIGNAL to
> the host signal first.
Okay.
--
Pedro Alves