From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5348 invoked by alias); 28 Aug 2008 18:19:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 5338 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Aug 2008 18:19:28 -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, 28 Aug 2008 18:18:43 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD25698189 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:18:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B861698187 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:18:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KYm4v-000830-6j for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:18:41 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:19:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: Do not call write_pc for "signal SIGINT" Message-ID: <20080828181841.GA30866@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20080828155520.GA23110@caradoc.them.org> <48B6E9F4.5080403@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48B6E9F4.5080403@vmware.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-08/txt/msg00653.txt.bz2 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