This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] infrun.c: use GDB_SIGNAL_0 when hidding signals, not GDB_SIGNAL_TRAP.
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:57:23 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] infrun.c: use GDB_SIGNAL_0 when hidding signals, not GDB_SIGNAL_TRAP.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1382460882-5303-1-git-send-email-palves at redhat dot com>
>>>>> "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