From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9623 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2007 19:37:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 9612 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Oct 2007 19:37:41 -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; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:37:39 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 623399833F; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:37:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2693F981F2; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:37:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1Ikm2p-0003vO-6i; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:37:35 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:40:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Pedro Alves , muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] win32-nat.c: Handle EXCEPTION_INVALID_HANDLE as SIGSYS Message-ID: <20071024193735.GG10943@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Pedro Alves , muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <008101c814b1$9aeb2dd0$d0c18970$@u-strasbg.fr> <20071023214730.GB5570@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <001301c81613$d5492730$7fdb7590$@u-strasbg.fr> <4053daab0710240139o1898369jc54fbb75c6c48cef@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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/msg00613.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 09:15:51PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:39:58 +0100 > > From: "Pedro Alves" > > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > > Maybe we can take the oportunity to implement more generic Windows exceptions > > support, not just EXCEPTION_INVALID_HANDLE. > > I think it's a good idea. In my experience, any serious program that > wants to handle signals and exceptions on Windows cannot avoid > supporting a large number of important EXCEPTION_* exceptions, because > unlike on Posix platforms, most of them are not translated into SIG* > style signals, at least in native Windows programs (as opposed to > Cygwin). If whoever works on this is feeling ambitious, I would prefer a solution that is not too tightly linked to Windows. I've worked with at least two different embedded developers this past year who were confused by the need to map platform-specific exceptions onto Unix signals. An embedded PowerPC developer is likely to have a much better idea what's going on if we tell him that his code triggered a Machine Check Exception than if we report SIGBUS. Before we can add this to the remote protocol, the rest of GDB needs to have some notion more general than "it's a signal". -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery