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

Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-10-26T12:18:57Z

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.

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