This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: QPassSignals patch to go with proposed protocol
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:55:09 -0400
- Subject: Re: QPassSignals patch to go with proposed protocol
- References: <20061025212805.GA872@nevyn.them.org>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:28:05 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
>
I have a few comments:
> + if (!last_pass_packet || strcmp (last_pass_packet, pass_packet))
> + {
> + struct remote_state *rs = get_remote_state ();
> + char *buf = rs->buf;
> +
> + putpkt (pass_packet);
> + getpkt (&rs->buf, &rs->buf_size, 0);
> + packet_ok (buf, &remote_protocol_packets[PACKET_QPassSignals]);
> + if (last_pass_packet)
> + xfree (last_pass_packet);
> + last_pass_packet = pass_packet;
> + }
> + else
> + xfree (pass_packet);
> + }
What happened with the indentation here? Some lines use spaces,
others use TABs and spaces.
> +@cindex inform remote target of signals passed to the inferior
This index entry is too long.
> +Each listed @var{signal}, using the same signal numbering used in
Too many uses of ``using'', ``used'', etc. I suggest to split this
sentence in two, and mention the signal numbering only in the second
one. Like this, for example:
Each listed SIGNAL should be passed directly to the inferior
process. Signals are numbered identically to continue packets and
stop responses (*note ...).
The *note at the end is to suggest a cross-reference to the place
where the signal numbering is described.
Why is the implementation only for Linux? Is there something
platform-dependent here?
Also, see my comments to your RFC posted to gdb@, about a more general
issue.