From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10349 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2002 07:12:59 -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 10314 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2002 07:12:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.cygnus.com) (24.114.42.213) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Jan 2002 07:12:56 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.cygnus.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5B963F0E; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 02:12:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C4BBF78.8050405@cygnus.com> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 23:12:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20020103 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Per Bothner 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> <3C4BAC6B.1030908@bothner.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00627.txt.bz2 > 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? Consider SIGXCPU. With your proposed change, a program that exceeds its CPU usage will quietly terminate. The user will loose their entire debug session. This is very different to GDB's current behavour where the signal is intercepted, the program is stopped, and control is returned to the user. Andrew