This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: does it make sense to stop on SIGPRIO?
- From: Michael Snyder <msnyder at vmware dot com>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: "gdb at sourceware dot org" <gdb at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:26:03 -0800
- Subject: Re: does it make sense to stop on SIGPRIO?
- References: <20110105072245.GA28888@adacore.com> <4D24B717.email@example.com>
Michael Snyder wrote:
Joel Brobecker wrote:
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?
I think it might be peculiar to LynxOS. Most google hits either refer
to gdb or Lynx.
Meant to imply -- in which case you can do what you like.