This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com 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 to ignore SIGPWR and SIGXCPU (used by pthreads)

From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
To: Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>
Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 02:12:56 -0500
Subject: Re: patch to ignore SIGPWR and SIGXCPU (used by pthreads)
References: <3C49D806.4050500@bothner.com> <3C4B6560.6010201@cygnus.com> <3C4BAC6B.1030908@bothner.com>


> Why not?  What does it hurt to (by default) just pass them to the
> inferior?  Having gdb stop inconveniences (and confuses) everybody who
> uses gcj.  Having gdb silently pass the signals to the application
> inconveniences/confuses - who?


Consider SIGXCPU.

With your proposed change, a program that exceeds its CPU usage will 
quietly terminate.   The user will loose their entire debug session. 
This is very different to GDB's current behavour where the signal is 
intercepted, the program is stopped, and control is returned to the user.

Andrew

Follow-Ups:
- Re: patch to ignore SIGPWR and SIGXCPU (used by pthreads)
  - From: Per Bothner
- Re: patch to ignore SIGPWR and SIGXCPU (used by pthreads)
  - From: Michael Snyder

References:
- patch to ignore SIGPWR and SIGXCPU (used by pthreads)
  - From: Per Bothner
- Re: patch to ignore SIGPWR and SIGXCPU (used by pthreads)
  - From: Andrew Cagney
- Re: patch to ignore SIGPWR and SIGXCPU (used by pthreads)
  - From: Per Bothner

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