Re: QPassSignals patch to go with proposed protocol

Eli Zaretskii
2006-10-26T06:55:25Z

> Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:28:05 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
>

I have a few comments:

> + if (!last_pass_packet || strcmp (last_pass_packet, pass_packet))
> + {
> + struct remote_state *rs = get_remote_state ();
> + char *buf = rs->buf;
> +
> + putpkt (pass_packet);
> + getpkt (&rs->buf, &rs->buf_size, 0);
> + packet_ok (buf, &remote_protocol_packets[PACKET_QPassSignals]);
> + if (last_pass_packet)
> + xfree (last_pass_packet);
> + last_pass_packet = pass_packet;
> + }
> + else
> + xfree (pass_packet);
> + }

What happened with the indentation here? Some lines use spaces,
others use TABs and spaces.

> +@cindex inform remote target of signals passed to the inferior

This index entry is too long.

> +Each listed @var{signal}, using the same signal numbering used in

Too many uses of ``using'', ``used'', etc. I suggest to split this
sentence in two, and mention the signal numbering only in the second
one. Like this, for example:

Each listed SIGNAL should be passed directly to the inferior
process. Signals are numbered identically to continue packets and
stop responses (*note ...).

The *note at the end is to suggest a cross-reference to the place
where the signal numbering is described.

Why is the implementation only for Linux? Is there something
platform-dependent here?

Also, see my comments to your RFC posted to gdb@, about a more general
issue.