From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6271 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2002 08:44:55 -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 6237 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2002 08:44:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.cygnus.com) (24.114.42.213) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Jan 2002 08:44:52 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.cygnus.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4F673F0E; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 03:44:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C4BD500.70605@cygnus.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 00:44:00 -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> <3C4BBF78.8050405@cygnus.com> <3C4BC418.1020407@bothner.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00631.txt.bz2 > Andrew Cagney wrote: > 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. > > How does a program exceed its CPU usage? In any other situation except > by having a person running the program explicitly set the CPU usage? > Somebody who knows how to to do that can be expected to know how to > use the 'handle' command. On the other hand, we should not expect > someone debugging a Java program to have to use 'handle'. That is > not acceptable, so we need to figure some way to fix this problem. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that it was the user that set the cpu-limit. That is often a BOFH imposed restriction. Remember, there is a compromise here. Change GDB's behavour to give GCJ/Linux users a good experience (and in the process cover up a screwup - lets be honest :-) VS give GCJ/Linux users a bad experience but preserve correct behavour for all other users. Andrew