Re: [RFC] win32-nat.c: Handle EXCEPTION_INVALID_HANDLE as SIGSYS

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org>]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 03:37:35PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>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" <pedro_alves@portugalmail.pt>
>> > 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".

That makes sense to me too.  I suspect that even Cygwin could use this
if it was general enough.

cgf