From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-62007-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 20591 invoked by alias); 9 Mar 2009 18:39:58 -0000
Received: (qmail 20573 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Mar 2009 18:39:57 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:39:51 +0000
Received: (qmail 21214 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2009 18:39:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2)   by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 9 Mar 2009 18:39:50 -0000
From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?q?S=E9rgio_Durigan_J=FAnior?= <sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] catch syscall -- try 4 -- Architecture-independent part
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:39:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10
Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>,  gdb-patches@sourceware.org
References: <1232929831.26873.22.camel@miki> <20090309131856.GA16796@caradoc.them.org> <1236611364.12452.7.camel@miki>
In-Reply-To: <1236611364.12452.7.camel@miki>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200903091839.50051.pedro@codesourcery.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-03/txt/msg00117.txt.bz2

On Monday 09 March 2009 15:09:24, S=E9rgio Durigan J=FAnior wrote:
> if (catch_syscall_enabled () > 0) ...
>=20
> What happens is that the code does not freeze. GDB still works with
> this, and as far as I could investigate it shows everything fine.
> Therefore, I think this function is not needed at all.

Oh, was that because you're only enabling PTRACE_O_TRACESYSGOOD
after startup_inferior is finished, in linux_child_post_startup_inferior,
and, PT_SYSCALL just behaves as PT_CONTINUE in that case?  That
would make sense to me.

--=20
Pedro Alves