This is the mail archive of the gdb@sourceware.org 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] |
On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 16:26 +0200, Jonathan Morton wrote: > On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 09:01 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 07:42:16PM -0500, Bernie Innocenti wrote: > > > <airlied> I think X might change TTY state and piss gdb off > > > > I'd imagine this is it, but it's impossible to tell without debugging > > the TTY state. > > > > When you hit ^C, that doesn't necessarily cause anything to happen. > > The TTY subsystem sees ^C, and may or may not generate a SIGINT to the > > foreground process group depending on the tty settings; try checking > > using stty -F, for instance. Then the foreground process group is X, > > not GDB; if the SIGINT is blocked or ignored, it won't be delivered, > > so GDB can't intercept it at delivery. > > > > Using ^C is not always reliable. > > A good trick might be to run X+gdb via SSH or a serial console. This is > then immune to VT switching semantics. This is the normal way people gdb X, yes. If you tried to attach gdb to the X server that's hosting the xterm that's running the gdb, you'd deadlock. - ajax
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |