This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] infrun.c: use GDB_SIGNAL_0 when hidding signals, not GDB_SIGNAL_TRAP.


>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:

Pedro> IMO, it doesn't make sense to map random syscall, fork, etc. events to
Pedro> GDB_SIGNAL_TRAP, and possible have the debuggee see that trap.  This
Pedro> just seems conceptually wrong to me - these aren't real signals a
Pedro> debuggee would ever see.  In fact, when stopped for those events, on
Pedro> Linux, the debuggee isn't in a signal-stop -- there's no way to
Pedro> resume-and-deliver-signal at that point, for example.
[...]
Pedro> Comments?

It definitely seems like a nice cleanup to me, at least as far as I
understand this code.  I remember not understanding the choice between
GDB_SIGNAL_TRAP and GDB_SIGNAL_0 here.

I am mildly nervous about all the other spots in gdb that check for
GDB_SIGNAL_TRAP.

Tom


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]