Re: [rfc/remote] Tell remote stubs which signals are boring

["Mark Kettenis" <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>]

>  On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 02:57:29AM -0400, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:24:41 -0400
> > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > >
> > > This is the solution I came up with for that problem, adjusted to HEAD
> > > and given a more sensible packet name.  I have a tested implementation
> > > of this patch for HEAD, if my remote protocol choices are acceptable.
> > > The new mechanism is completely transparent to the user.
> >
> > I'm confused: shouldn't this packet be automatically sent to a remote
> > target when I say, e.g., "handle SIGALRM nostop noprint pass"?  Am I
> > missing something?
>
>  Now I'm confused :-)  Isn't that exactly what I said above?  It's
>  completely transparent; it just works.

Perhaps I should even add more confusing statements to that.  What if I say
"handle SIGALRM nostop noprint pass" after I've connected to the remote
target.  Will it send a new  QPassSignals packet when I do that?  AFAICT
from your patch it doesn't do that, and that seems broken to me.