From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
To: dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu
Cc: ac131313@cygnus.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [rfa] gdbserver 2/n - signals
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 00:32:00 -0000
Message-id: <9003-Fri20Jul2001103107+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
References: <20010719120143.A19963@nevyn.them.org> <3B574A5D.6030403@cygnus.com> <20010719141742.A25968@nevyn.them.org> <3B5755C9.8070003@cygnus.com> <20010719145237.A28070@nevyn.them.org>
X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00506.html

> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 14:52:37 -0700
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu>
> 
> 2001-07-19  Daniel Jacobowitz  <drow@mvista.com>
> 
> 	* gdb.texinfo (Protocol): Mention that signal numbers
> 	are defined by the target_signal enum.
> 
> Index: gdb.texinfo
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo,v
> retrieving revision 1.44
> diff -u -r1.44 gdb.texinfo
> --- gdb.texinfo	2001/07/06 04:07:29	1.44
> +++ gdb.texinfo	2001/07/19 18:56:55
> @@ -10211,8 +10211,8 @@
>  receive any of the below as a reply.  In the case of the @samp{C},
>  @samp{c}, @samp{S} and @samp{s} packets, that reply is only returned
>  when the target halts.  In the below the exact meaning of @samp{signal
> -number} is poorly defined.  In general one of the UNIX signal numbering
> -conventions is used.
> +number} is defined by the type @code{enum target_signal}.  For the most
> +common signals this corresponds to the UNIX signal numbering conventions.

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.