From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15102 invoked by alias); 10 Mar 2009 02:45:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 15091 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Mar 2009 02:45:28 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-173-76-42-111.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO cgf.cx) (173.76.42.111) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 02:45:23 +0000 Received: from ednor.cgf.cx (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2473513C022; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 22:45:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 0D2D02B385; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 22:45:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 08:52:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Oswald Buddenhagen Subject: Re: make attaching to stopped processes work under windows Message-ID: <20090310024513.GA16996@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Oswald Buddenhagen References: <20090226192552.GB15958@troll08.nokia.trolltech.de> <20090228004414.GA21767@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20090226192552.GB15958@troll08.nokia.trolltech.de> <20090302195625.GA16983@troll08.nokia.trolltech.de> <20090303052130.GA28801@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20090303120504.GA18244@troll08.nokia.trolltech.de> <20090308193233.GA6438@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20090309205219.GA13532@troll08.nokia.trolltech.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090309205219.GA13532@troll08.nokia.trolltech.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) 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: 2009-03/txt/msg00138.txt.bz2 On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 09:52:19PM +0100, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: >On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 03:32:33PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 01:05:04PM +0100, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: >>>after all, why should it matter whether the process is suspended in the >>>first place? >> >>Because you may be debugging a situation where you want precise control >>over the process's suspend count. The process may be suspended for >>reasons other than the way that you are specifically using it. >> >>For instance, if this code was invoked at the wrong time on a cygwin >>process it could screw up cygwin's signal handling which tries to (very >>carefully) use SuspendThread/SetThreadContext/ResumeThread to send >>signals when running in user code. > >the bad news is that gdb simply hangs without my patch, so your >situation is rather hypothetical. I assure you that Cygwin is not hypothetical. It really does exist. I provided you with a specific example so that you would see that this wasn't hypothetical. cgf