This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfa] signals 1/3 - move target_signal handling out of target.c
On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 06:00:46PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> > I can't really think of a better name than target_signal.
>
>
> Problem I have with ``target signal'' is that I'm never sure if I'm
> talking about a ``target signal'' or a ``target_signal''.
> ``gdb_signal'' while contrived, is probably less ambigious.
>
> One warped convention is to use ``siggnal'' [sic]. I don't know that
> that is any better than ``signals''.
I'd prefer to stick with target_signal unless you've got a strong
preference. gdb_signal doesn't seem to gain us especially much.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer