Re: [PATCH] Clarify documentation of signal numbers

["Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@orcam.me.uk>]

On Sat, 21 Dec 2024, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> It's clear enough, IMO.  But I wonder whether we should simply have a
> table of POSIX signal numbers 1-15 and the corresponding names, as GDB
> converts them.  Then the examples you show (which describe just some
> of those conversions) will be unnecessary, and we only need to say
> that signals 1-15 are interpreted as POSIX says and as shown in the
> table.  A table is IMO better because if someone uses GDB on a
> non-POSIX platform, they don't necessarily have easy access to header
> files on a POSIX platform to find out which signal is, say, signal 11.
> So the only way for them to know is to type
> 
>   (gdb) handle 11 stop
> 
> and see what GDB shows in response, which is not always
> possible/convenient.

 FWIW I think it would make sense to show signal number information along 
with output from `info signal'.  I wasn't aware even you could use numbers 
rather than names here.

  Maciej