This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfa/doc/threads] thread breakpoints and system calls
- From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz at elta dot co dot il>
- To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, drow at mvista dot com
- Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 19:30:33 +0200
- Subject: Re: [rfa/doc/threads] thread breakpoints and system calls
- References: <200310261459.h9QExPlc022980@duracef.shout.net>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at elta dot co dot il>
> Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 09:59:25 -0500
> From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net>
>
> Looking for approval from a thread guy such as Daniel J for content,
> and Eli Z for syntax.
Approved, with one gotcha: the GNU project standards discourage the
use of ``illegal'' for anything other than actions that break the law.
So I would rewrite the following sentence:
> + It is legal behavior for a system call to return early, so @value{GDBN}
> + does not cause your program to behave illegally.
like this:
It is perfectly okay for a system call to return early, so @value{GDBN}
does not cause your problem to behave erratically.
I would also suggest to add that the early return is due to a signal
(SIGTRAP, right?) caused by the breaking breakpoint. This will help
programmers who know that a system call can return early due to a
signal to understand better what's going on.
Thanks.