From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26928 invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2005 22:33:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26861 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2005 22:33:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 17 Mar 2005 22:33:15 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.44 #1 (Debian)) id 1DC3YA-0005GI-5A; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:33:06 -0500 Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:33:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Kris Warkentin Cc: GDB Subject: Re: Possibly dumb signal mapping question Message-ID: <20050317223306.GA20195@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Kris Warkentin , GDB References: <4239F328.5000505@qnx.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4239F328.5000505@qnx.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00178.txt.bz2 On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 04:14:16PM -0500, Kris Warkentin wrote: > Say I'm building a gdb on Linux that remotely targets Neutrino, what is > the acceptable way to map our OS signals onto TARGET_SIGNAL_*? I'm > looking at the target_signal_[to/from]_host functions but they look like > they depend on the various SIG*s having been defined. Wouldn't those > defines collide with host defines? Perhaps I'm getting confused for no > good reason.... If I _were_ going to define them, what would be a good > place? > > I accidentally dropped the signal mapping code from our old port but in > looking at it, it looks too hacky to live. We've got some ugly > target_signal_[to/from]_qnx functions that we just use to convert any > signals sent to and from the remote target. Is there a better way? Your stub should be doing this. The TARGET_SIGNAL_* constants are the on-the-wire values. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC