Re: RFC: Do not call write_pc for "signal SIGINT"

[Michael Snyder <msnyder at vmware dot com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:09:56AM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
> > Hmmm, kind of opaque.  Your new code seems like the right
> > thing to do, but I don't understand the code that you're replacing.
> >
> > Isn't -1 supposed to mean the same as stop_pc?
>
> Except that we call gdbarch_write_pc to replace the PC in this case,
> and that has side effects - take a look at a Linux example.
>
> > And isn't signal 0 equivalent to no signal?
>
> Yes, that's right.
>
> > > This isn't the only place where Linux's internal errno codes can leak
> > > back into user programs because of how we fiddle orig_eax.  I'll file
> > > another bug report about that.
> > Now you've really lost me.  What have errno codes
> > got to do with this?
>
> Sorry, take a look at the PR (gdb/2241) for more information.  When
> you hit C-c during select, and then type "signal SIGINT", the program
> gets errno 514 instead of EINTR.
>
> Yes, I know, I need a testcase...

More than a testcase.  This isn't very well explained.
You didn't reference the PR in your original post, and
I'm still not sure how we're getting from SIGINT to
signal 0...