Re: patch to ignore SIGPWR and SIGXCPU (used by pthreads)

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 09:27:29AM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote:
> Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > 
> > > Why not?  What does it hurt to (by default) just pass them to the
> > > inferior?  Having gdb stop inconveniences (and confuses) everybody who
> > > uses gcj.  Having gdb silently pass the signals to the application
> > > inconveniences/confuses - who?
> > 
> > Consider SIGXCPU.
> > 
> > With your proposed change, a program that exceeds its CPU usage will
> > quietly terminate.   The user will loose their entire debug session.
> > This is very different to GDB's current behavour where the signal is
> > intercepted, the program is stopped, and control is returned to the user.
> 
> 
> Java's use of these signals is somewhat analogous to what
> linux threads does.  In that case, we also "silence" the 
> signals, but we do it only in the context where we know
> they are used.  Only for linux, and only when a multi-thread
> program is detected.
> 
> Could you do something like that?

Could we make Boehm GC export two variables containing the values of
the signals it intends to use, and recognise their presence?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer