From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13884 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2002 05:51:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13748 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2002 05:51:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bothner.com) (216.102.199.253) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Jan 2002 05:51:11 -0000 Received: from bothner.com (eureka.bothner.com [192.168.1.9]) by bothner.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0L5qXM06601; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 21:52:33 -0800 Message-ID: <3C4BAC6B.1030908@bothner.com> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 21:51:00 -0000 From: Per Bothner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.7+) Gecko/20020111 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Cagney CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: patch to ignore SIGPWR and SIGXCPU (used by pthreads) References: <3C49D806.4050500@bothner.com> <3C4B6560.6010201@cygnus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00625.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney wrote: > Per, can you please expand a little on the history of this choice of > signals? > > SIGXCPU terminate process CPU time limit exceeded (see > SIGPWR discard signal power failure/restart I forwarded your message to the java mailing list. But my assumption is - what does it matter? At least when using linux-threads, we do use these signals. As I understand it, linux-threads uses kernel support and does not uses signals. However, the garbage collector needs to be able to stop and re-start all threads when doing a collection. It does this using signals, at least under linux-threads. This has nothing to do with the Solaris user-leel threads implementation, and is a completely orthoginal issue. > I don't know that it is right to always silence/ignore these signals > when not all systems are using pthreads/libgcj. Why not? What does it hurt to (by default) just pass them to the inferior? Having gdb stop inconveniences (and confuses) everybody who uses gcj. Having gdb silently pass the signals to the application inconveniences/confuses - who? -- --Per Bothner per@bothner.com http://www.bothner.com/per/