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

Mark Kettenis
2006-10-26T15:27:27Z

> 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.