A Friday 11 July 2008 15:13:26, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 02:58:33AM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:

> > 2) change the test to:
> >
> >       if (stop_soon == STOP_QUIETLY_NO_SIGSTOP
> > 	  && stop_signal == TARGET_SIGNAL_STOP
> > 	  && stop_signal == TARGET_SIGNAL_TRAP)
>
> Ought to be some || in there :-)
>

No kidding!  No more posting at 3AM for me.  :-)

> > 	{
> > 	  stop_stepping (ecs);
> > 	  stop_signal = TARGET_SIGNAL_0;
> > 	  return;
> > 	}
> >
> >    Or even add a `&& stop_signal == TARGET_SIGNAL_0', and merge
> >    this stop_soon with STOP_QUIETLY_REMOTE.
>
> I don't think I understand.
>

I think this is the same insanity as above :-)

> Allowing both stop and trap sounds reasonable to me.  We already rely
> on there not being other sources of SIGTRAP.

Here a patch for that.  I confirmed that the SIGTRAP notice is gone against
gdbserver, and ran the the attaching into signals tests, and the
attach.exp test nativelly, and all pass cleanly.

-- 
Pedro Alves