From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-26690-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 15572 invoked by alias); 26 Oct 2006 06:57:38 -0000
Received: (qmail 15564 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Oct 2006 06:57:37 -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 06:57:35 +0000
Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) 	id 1GczBB-0006Wu-9h; Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:57:30 -0400
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
CC: gdb@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20061025212441.GA622@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel 	Jacobowitz on Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:24:41 -0400)
Subject: Re: [rfc/remote] Tell remote stubs which signals are boring
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References:  <20061025212441.GA622@nevyn.them.org>
Message-Id: <E1GczBB-0006Wu-9h@fencepost.gnu.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 06:57:00 -0000
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2006-10/txt/msg00252.txt.bz2

> 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?