From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-101778-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 12575 invoked by alias); 21 May 2013 18:49:04 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 12558 invoked by uid 89); 21 May 2013 18:49:01 -0000
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mailrelay006.isp.belgacom.be (HELO mailrelay006.isp.belgacom.be) (195.238.6.172)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 May 2013 18:48:59 +0000
X-Belgacom-Dynamic: yes
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjcDADnBm1Ftgbk2/2dsb2JhbAANTIZzvg8DAYEhgxcBAQEEI1YQCw4KAgImAgJXBrErcpFxgSaNFV8HgkGBEwOhU4o2
Received: from 54.185-129-109.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be (HELO [192.168.1.4]) ([109.129.185.54])  by relay.skynet.be with ESMTP; 21 May 2013 20:48:56 +0200
Subject: Re: RFA: fix gdb_assert caused by 'catch signal ...' and fork
From: Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be>
To: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-Reply-To: <51967454.7000306@redhat.com>
References: <1368136582.30058.7.camel@soleil>  <518D2C4F.8070102@redhat.com>	 <1368736234.2225.30.camel@soleil>  <51967454.7000306@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 18:49:00 -0000
Message-ID: <1369162155.2221.1.camel@soleil>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00784.txt.bz2

On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 19:17 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> >>> +      (void) wait(NULL);
> IMO, that's more noise than signal.  We ignore return values in
> many many cases, and don't do that (including other wait calls in
> the testsuite).
Removed the '(void)'
> 
> > I also added a comment in breakpoint.c, to explain why
> > the bp_loc_other locations are not removed.
> > 
> > Ok to apply ?
> 
> Looks good to me.  Give it a couple days more, in case Doug or
> others wants to comment, and check it in then.
and committed.

Thanks

Philippe