From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6660 invoked by alias); 29 Jan 2008 21:17:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 6648 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jan 2008 21:17:23 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:17:02 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0BA82A96CB for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:16:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 3NiQOEH2jh3s for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:16:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D2592A96C8 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:16:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3D55EE7ACB; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:16:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:26:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Support exec tracing on GNU/Linux and HP-UX Message-ID: <20080129211657.GC16288@adacore.com> References: <20071019175920.GA548@caradoc.them.org> <20071022043831.GD764@adacore.com> <20071022114328.GA1421@caradoc.them.org> <20071022184702.GG764@adacore.com> <20071022185627.GH764@adacore.com> <20071022193024.GA16312@caradoc.them.org> <20071221153039.GO6154@adacore.com> <20080129170835.GC2815@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080129170835.GC2815@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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: 2008-01/txt/msg00724.txt.bz2 Hi Daniel, First of all, thanks very much for the mega-load of reviews you did today. I was hoping for a more positive result, of course :-), but it's interesting to get your opinion and we can start some discussions. > > 2007-12-21 Joel Brobecker > > > > * infrun.c (wait_for_inferior): Add treat_exec_as_sigtrap parameter > > and use it. > > (proceed, start_remote): Update call to wait_for_inferior. > > * inferior.h (wait_for_inferior): Update declaration. > > * fork-child.c, infcmd.c, solib-irix.c, solib-osf.c, solib-sunos.c, > > solib-svr4.c, win32-nat.c: Update calls to wait_for_inferior. > > * inf-ttrace.c (inf_ttrace_wait): Report TTEVT_EXEC events as > > TARGET_WAITKIND_EXECD instead of TARGET_WAITKIND_STOPPED. > > > > Tested on hppa-hpux, no regression. > This looks good to me - would you add that comment and check it in? Absolutely. Here is the comment that I added: If TREAT_EXEC_AS_SIGTRAP is non-zero, then handle EXEC signals as if they were SIGTRAP signals. This can be useful during the startup sequence on some targets such as HP/UX, where we receive an EXEC event instead of the expected SIGTRAP. Hope this is clear enough. Do you want to push your patch for the 6.8 release or would you rather wait for the next one? -- Joel