From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2002 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2007 03:07:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 1917 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Oct 2007 03:07:12 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-70-20-17-24.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO cgf.cx) (70.20.17.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 03:07:10 +0000 Received: by cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id E170B13C306; Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:07:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 08:25:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr, Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [RFC] win32-nat.c: Handle EXCEPTION_INVALID_HANDLE as SIGSYS Message-ID: <20071029030708.GB18776@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr, Eli Zaretskii References: <008101c814b1$9aeb2dd0$d0c18970$@u-strasbg.fr> <20071023214730.GB5570@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <001301c81613$d5492730$7fdb7590$@u-strasbg.fr> <4053daab0710240139o1898369jc54fbb75c6c48cef@mail.gmail.com> <20071024193735.GG10943@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071024193735.GG10943@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) 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/msg00747.txt.bz2 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" >> > 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