Re: [rfa] gdbserver signal handling

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>]

> Yes.  It isn't as bad as it sounds though.  The problem has always been 
>> there so we're not exactly fixing a regression.  Besides, the next 
>> release is only 22 weeks away.
> 
> 
> My motivation to finish this before release was that this was the only
> remaining set of tests which gdbserver should have been able to pass
> and could not after my rewrite; it'll be built on a lot more platforms
> now, and probably used more.  It didn't pass particularly many of
> them beforehand.  This isn't terribly important to me, since I'm only
> responsible for two distributions of GDB and both of them have patch
> application mechanisms (:-)), but I suspect we'll see it reported
> pretty frequently over the next 22 weeks.

I'm more worred by the far too frequent ``gdbserver isn't built'' 
e-mail.  If someone sends a bug report indicating a problem in 
gdbserver's signal handling (indicating they managed to build 
gdbserver), I'll be breaking out the bubbly! :-)
> I agree that the patch isn't ideal; but if a proper fix goes in the
> mainline can we put this on the branch?

I'll leave that decision to when the proper fix is in the trunk.

Andrew