From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6173 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 2010 18:51:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 6154 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Sep 2010 18:51:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:51:26 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o81IpFGX018218 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 1 Sep 2010 14:51:15 -0400 Received: from host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o81IpDuc006626 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Sep 2010 14:51:14 -0400 Received: from host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o81IpCaQ025182; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 20:51:12 +0200 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id o81IpCSU025181; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 20:51:12 +0200 Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:51:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Joel Brobecker 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: <20100901185112.GC24300@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> References: <20100830140814.GE2986@adacore.com> <20100831182829.GA16136@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20100901181830.GB2986@adacore.com> <20100901182943.GA23673@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20100901183952.GE2986@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100901183952.GE2986@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00046.txt.bz2 On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 20:39:52 +0200, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > 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). The patches of mine re-introduce (in [patch 3/9]#2) former `enum target_signal' as `enum target_signal_number'. Keeping the `enum target_signal' name would contradict (**) the sole remaining meaning of the [patch 3/9]#2 patch (*) - making target_signal and `int host_signal' type incompatible catching various bugs in the current code. (*) After it stopped to be a pre-requisite for the [rfc 7/9]#2 patch. (**) While it is easy to ensure no `enum target_signal' remains used/misplaced in the current code it would not get protected against all the 3rd party patches floating around out there reintroducing the same problem in the future. `enum target_signal_number' is a new type and it is used only on very few places where the user is fortunately careful enough not to misplace it with `int host_signal'. On other places `target_signal_t' is now a struct naturally type-incompatible with `int host_signal'. Thanks, Jan