From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cagney To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] gdbserver 2/n - signals Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 16:48:00 -0000 Message-id: <3B58C35E.7020106@cygnus.com> References: <20010719120143.A19963@nevyn.them.org> <3B574A5D.6030403@cygnus.com> <20010719141742.A25968@nevyn.them.org> <3B5755C9.8070003@cygnus.com> <20010719145237.A28070@nevyn.them.org> <9003-Fri20Jul2001103107+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <20010720083249.A21309@nevyn.them.org> <9743-Fri20Jul2001213136+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00536.html >> Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 08:32:49 -0700 >> From: Daniel Jacobowitz > >> > >> > I don't really understand the rationale for this change. This is a >> > user's manual; why should it matter to a user to know the name of the >> > enum which defines signal numbers? I don't see how it makes the issue >> > better defined (since you removed the ``poorly defined'' phrase). >> > >> > If we do want to leave the `enum target_signal' info in the manual, at >> > the very least please say what source file is that defined on. > >> >> Well, the way I see it is that the signal numbering convention is part >> of the remote protocol, and so should be documented in the manual; at >> the same time I didn't really want to duplicate the hundred and >> something signals inline in the texinfo documentation. > > > Then perhaps this info shouldn't be in the manual. Something needs to be documented - a recent question on the bug-gdb list about those exact values confirms this. Perhaphs list the values that GDB treats as significant - $SIGNONE, $SIGBREAK, $SIGINT and a reference to the file. Andrew