On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 10:10:17PM +0400, Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote: > 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)?
That would be one approach. It would still be leave someone compiling gdb from source to discover such surprises, but I am not sure if we care. Joerg