Re: [rfa] gdbserver 2/n - signals

["Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@is.elta.co.il>]

> Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 08:32:49 -0700
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu>
> > 
> > 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.

> I don't really understand why the remote protocol is documented in the
> user's manual, either :)

There's a difference between documenting a protocol and talking about
enumerations from GDB sources.