From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13216 invoked by alias); 26 Oct 2006 12:18:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 13202 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Oct 2006 12:18:56 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:18:41 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1Gd4Bz-0007YN-4o; Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:18:39 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:18:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, ddaney@avtrex.com Subject: Re: [rfc/remote] Tell remote stubs which signals are boring Message-ID: <20061026121838.GA28927@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sourceware.org, ddaney@avtrex.com References: <20061025212441.GA622@nevyn.them.org> <453FEB98.8090202@avtrex.com> <20061026014027.GA9023@nevyn.them.org> <20061025212441.GA622@nevyn.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-10/txt/msg00257.txt.bz2 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 > > > > 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. On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 03:02:51AM -0400, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > It will just work. > > Then this should be mentioned in the manual, both where the new packet > and command are described, and where the "handle" command is > described. Can you expand on this? Honestly, I have no idea what to say. It's just a performance optimization; it shouldn't affect the user experience at all. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery