From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11220 invoked by alias); 10 Apr 2008 15:16:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 11145 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Apr 2008 15:16:07 -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; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:15:48 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F440980F7; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:15:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A17D98060; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:15:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JjyV7-0007FQ-Aw; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:15:45 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:30:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Roland McGrath Cc: Jan Kratochvil , Doug Evans , GDB Patches , mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl Subject: Re: [patch] Fix Linux attach to signalled/stopped processes Message-ID: <20080410151545.GC21662@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Roland McGrath , Jan Kratochvil , Doug Evans , GDB Patches , mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl References: <20080401223012.GA14076@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20080401224936.5F0EC26F8DC@magilla.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080401224936.5F0EC26F8DC@magilla.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) 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: 2008-04/txt/msg00191.txt.bz2 On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 03:49:36PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote: > I'm not sure if there was any question for me about kernel behavior in there. > > As a gdb user, I have long been annoyed by the behavior on attaching to a > stopped process. What I want is for attach to complete immediately and let > me examine the process. If I then "cont", the process should go back to > what it was doing--sitting in job control stop. Then fg or otherwise > sending SIGCONT will wake it up normally, and gdb should stop and tell me > about the SIGCONT like normal. How could GDB put an attached process back into job control stop? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery