Tell remote stubs which signals are boring

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 <drowfalse.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