From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31399 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2002 20:55:18 -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 31284 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2002 20:55:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2002 20:55:16 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C5F3D79; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 15:55:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C7E9932.4090803@cygnus.com> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:55:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020210 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] gdbserver signal handling References: <20020227231216.A6045@nevyn.them.org> <3C7E462C.6050209@cygnus.com> <20020228115501.B8496@nevyn.them.org> <3C7E67F6.4090205@cygnus.com> <20020228124343.A10331@nevyn.them.org> <3C7E8527.4070005@cygnus.com> <20020228153023.A16149@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00751.txt.bz2 > Yes. It isn't as bad as it sounds though. The problem has always been >> there so we're not exactly fixing a regression. Besides, the next >> release is only 22 weeks away. > > > My motivation to finish this before release was that this was the only > remaining set of tests which gdbserver should have been able to pass > and could not after my rewrite; it'll be built on a lot more platforms > now, and probably used more. It didn't pass particularly many of > them beforehand. This isn't terribly important to me, since I'm only > responsible for two distributions of GDB and both of them have patch > application mechanisms (:-)), but I suspect we'll see it reported > pretty frequently over the next 22 weeks. I'm more worred by the far too frequent ``gdbserver isn't built'' e-mail. If someone sends a bug report indicating a problem in gdbserver's signal handling (indicating they managed to build gdbserver), I'll be breaking out the bubbly! :-) > I agree that the patch isn't ideal; but if a proper fix goes in the > mainline can we put this on the branch? I'll leave that decision to when the proper fix is in the trunk. Andrew