On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 17:07:14 +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > Problem is that historically PT_STEP's data argument was ignored and the > in-tree gdb has one case where it provides a signal number as data. > > What is the best solution? From looking at all the cases, I think the > only sane approach is to add a new request PT_LWPSTEP.
Can't you just version it? Rename existing PT_STEP to PT_OSTEP or something, define PT_STEP with the new value (instead of introducing new PT_* name)? -uwe