This is the mail archive of the 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] New command: queue-signal

> From: Doug Evans <>
> Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2014 16:36:00 -0700
> --- a/gdb/NEWS
> +++ b/gdb/NEWS
> @@ -3,6 +3,11 @@
>  *** Changes since GDB 7.8
> +* New commands
> +
> +queue-signal signal-name-or-number
> +  Queue a signal to be delivered to the thread when it is resumed.
> +

This part is OK.

> +@kindex queue-signal
> +@item queue-signal @var{signal}
> +Queue signal @var{signal} to be delivered immediately to the current thread

You don't need the first "signal"; the second alone is enough.

> +The handling of the signal must be set to pass the signal to the program,
> +otherwise gdb will discard it when resuming the thread.  The handling of

> +signals from @value{GDBN} is done with the @code{handle} command
"is controlled" is better.  For bonus points, make this sentence use
active tense ("you can control ...").

> +Alternatively, if @var{signal} is zero, any currently queued signal is
> +discarded and when execution resumes no signal will be delivered.

Only to/for the current thread, right?  The text sounds much more
general than that, so I wonder.

> +  c = add_com ("queue-signal", class_run, queue_signal_command, _("\
> +Queue a signal to be delivered to the program when it is resumed.\n\
I suggest to say "the current thread" here.

The documentation parts are OK with these fixed.


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