From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12162 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2007 19:30:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 12127 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Oct 2007 19:30:30 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:30:27 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7E459833E for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:30:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC6879833D for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:30:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1Ik2ym-0004KM-On for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:30:24 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:01:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Support exec tracing on GNU/Linux and HP-UX Message-ID: <20071022193024.GA16312@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20071019175920.GA548@caradoc.them.org> <20071022043831.GD764@adacore.com> <20071022114328.GA1421@caradoc.them.org> <20071022184702.GG764@adacore.com> <20071022185627.GH764@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071022185627.GH764@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-10/txt/msg00517.txt.bz2 On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 11:56:27AM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > Actually, not so simple, because the EXEC event counts as > one of the 2 events we expect during the startup phase. So the EXEC > events must be activated at startup-time. The only option I can see > at this point is to add a static global that is set during the startup > phase, and would then cause the EXEC event to be translated into a > SIGTRAP vulgaris when set. Another approach would be to have infrun > treat EXEC events as SIGTRAPs during the startup phase. I don't think > the second option is easier to implement (infrun needs to find out > whether we're in the middle of startup or not, and then we need to > redirect EXEC events into SIGTRAP events). What do you think of > option 1? Actually, I like option 2 better. Maybe we can push pending_execs into a global similar to the (slightly different, though unused at present) inferior_ignoring_leading_exec_events? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery