[PATCH] infrun.c: use GDB_SIGNAL_0 when hidding signals, not GDB_SIGNAL_TRAP.
Tom Tromey
tromey@redhat.com
Tue Oct 29 16:57:00 GMT 2013
>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
Pedro> IMO, it doesn't make sense to map random syscall, fork, etc. events to
Pedro> GDB_SIGNAL_TRAP, and possible have the debuggee see that trap. This
Pedro> just seems conceptually wrong to me - these aren't real signals a
Pedro> debuggee would ever see. In fact, when stopped for those events, on
Pedro> Linux, the debuggee isn't in a signal-stop -- there's no way to
Pedro> resume-and-deliver-signal at that point, for example.
[...]
Pedro> Comments?
It definitely seems like a nice cleanup to me, at least as far as I
understand this code. I remember not understanding the choice between
GDB_SIGNAL_TRAP and GDB_SIGNAL_0 here.
I am mildly nervous about all the other spots in gdb that check for
GDB_SIGNAL_TRAP.
Tom
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list