From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30487 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 2010 02:03:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 30254 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Sep 2010 02:03:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Sep 2010 02:03:21 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C8162BABC2; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:03:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 4BvNQoqhoR1V; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:03:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 166F02BABBF; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:03:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C77BCF599F; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:03:10 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 02:03:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch 1/9]#2 Rename `enum target_signal' to target_signal_t Message-ID: <20100901020310.GU2986@adacore.com> References: <20100830140814.GE2986@adacore.com> <20100831182829.GA16136@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100831182829.GA16136@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-09/txt/msg00003.txt.bz2 > I would prefer gdb_target_signal_t or also gdb_target_signal. > Is one of those approved? FWIW: I also prefer gdb_target_signal - Let's avoid _t if POSIX doesn't like it, and I don't think that the _t brings much anyways. > Now I probably won't extend target_signal by any new fields (as the logic can > be kept inside linux-nat.c) so this part remains only as a "code cleanup" to > better sanity check the types compatibility (by the struct wrapping). There > have been caught several minor bugs already before and in this patchset. I will try to have a look at the patch tomorrow, but I agree on the principle. -- Joel