QPassSignals patch to go with proposed protocol

[Eli Zaretskii]

> 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.