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

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 04:55:01PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Here it is with a testcase.
> 
> To recap: there is a tricky bug in signal_command.  If any non-zero
> signal is specified, it performs a jump to the current address instead
> of just resuming there.  This causes any pending system call to be
> interrupted, in a way that leaves a kernel-internal value in the
> return value register.  If we just delete that code, and the FIXME
> that goes with it, the right thing happens: instead of "Unknown
> error 514", the system call returns EINTR and the loop continues.

> 2008-11-17  Daniel Jacobowitz  <dan@codesourcery.com>
> 
> 	PR gdb/2241
> 	* infcmd.c (signal_command): Do not specify a resume PC.
> 
> 2008-11-17  Daniel Jacobowitz  <dan@codesourcery.com>
> 
> 	PR gdb/2241
> 	* gdb.base/interrupt.c (sigint_handler): New.
> 	(main): Install a SIGINT handler if SIGNALS is defined.  Exit
> 	on error.
> 	* gdb.base/interrupt.exp: Define SIGNALS unless gdb,nosignals.
> 	Test "signal SIGINT".

I have checked this in.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery