From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Cc: Fabrice Gautier <gautier@email.enst.fr>, jtc@redback.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: gdbserver (was Re: parcelling up struct gdbarch)
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:10:00 -0000
Message-id: <3B547FA1.2010605@cygnus.com>
References: <3B536B0C.3060908@cygnus.com> <20010716154024.A9181@nevyn.them.org> <20010717012923.F61A.GAUTIER@email.enst.fr> <3B546F34.6030207@cygnus.com> <20010717101136.A16841@nevyn.them.org>
X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00214.html

> 
> How so?  It seems to me to be a much simpler problem, instead.  It
> means that gdbserver needes target_signal_to_host and friends, which is
> much easier.  If, that is, we change documentation and gdbserver rather than
> remote.c.


If gdbserver is going to pass ptrace() (i.e. target dependant) register 
bufers then should it also pass back target dependant signal numbers?

In fact, thinking about it, I know where my comment would have come from 
- I would have looked at gdbserver and tried to document the current 
behavour.  Only later did I notice that the comment was wrong and 
remote.c wasn't doing any conversion :-/

So, which is correct?


	Andrew