Re: RFC: Do not call write_pc for "signal SIGINT"

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:09:56AM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
> Hmmm, kind of opaque.  Your new code seems like the right
> thing to do, but I don't understand the code that you're replacing.
>
> Isn't -1 supposed to mean the same as stop_pc?

Except that we call gdbarch_write_pc to replace the PC in this case,
and that has side effects - take a look at a Linux example.

> And isn't signal 0 equivalent to no signal?

Yes, that's right.

>> This isn't the only place where Linux's internal errno codes can leak
>> back into user programs because of how we fiddle orig_eax.  I'll file
>> another bug report about that.
>
> Now you've really lost me.  What have errno codes
> got to do with this?

Sorry, take a look at the PR (gdb/2241) for more information.  When
you hit C-c during select, and then type "signal SIGINT", the program
gets errno 514 instead of EINTR.

Yes, I know, I need a testcase...

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery