Re: does it make sense to stop on SIGPRIO?

[Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>]

> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 11:22:45 +0400
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
> 
> I've been looking at how we decide what to when we receive a signal.
> We have some code that disables stop&printing for various signals
> because these signals are used as part of normal thread operations.
> 
>   /* These signals are used internally by user-level thread
>      implementations.  (See signal(5) on Solaris.)  Like the above
>      signals, a healthy program receives and handles them as part of
>      its normal operation.  */
> 
> We do the same for other signals, which are not error signals:
> 
>   /* Signals that are not errors should not normally enter the debugger.  */
> 
> On LynxOS, changing the priority of a thread automatically causes
> a SIGPRIO signal to be raised.  I think that SIGPRIO falls more
> into the second category (not a signal used to indicate an error).
> 
> Are there any known situations where we would want a SIGPRIO would
> be indicating something abnormal, or significant enough that we would
> want to stop?

Given that SIGPRIO seems to be something rather un-UNIXy (OpenBSD,
Linux and Solaris don't seem to have it), I think you can do here
whatever you like ;).