From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1023 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 2010 18:40:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 1014 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Sep 2010 18:40:07 -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 18:40:03 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D90A02BAC5F; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 14:40:01 -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 dC8ip1r8Ksld; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 14:40:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80A262BAB09; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 14:40:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A0EC0F599F; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 20:39:52 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:40:00 -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: <20100901183952.GE2986@adacore.com> References: <20100830140814.GE2986@adacore.com> <20100831182829.GA16136@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20100901181830.GB2986@adacore.com> <20100901182943.GA23673@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100901182943.GA23673@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/msg00042.txt.bz2 > These were the reasons for the typedef but I do not mind and I can > monkey-patch whatever gets agreed upon and be done with this part which > accidentally became a code cleanup only patch. I'm not against the typedef at all :). I was just thinking that perhaps we could leave the enum alone as one component of the struct (be it typedef'ed). -- Joel