From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14988 invoked by alias); 26 Oct 2006 06:55:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 14980 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Oct 2006 06:55:24 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (199.232.76.164) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Oct 2006 06:55:22 +0000 Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1Gcz8v-0006Sm-RV; Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:55:12 -0400 From: Eli Zaretskii To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20061025212805.GA872@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:28:05 -0400) Subject: Re: QPassSignals patch to go with proposed protocol Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20061025212805.GA872@nevyn.them.org> Message-Id: Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 06:55:00 -0000 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-10/txt/msg00281.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:28:05 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > 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.