Re: RFA: patch to infptrace.c

["J. Johnston" <jjohnstn@redhat.com>]

Kevin Buettner wrote:
> On May 21,  6:31pm, J. Johnston wrote:
> 
> 
>>The attached patch changes the ptrace detach call to not perform error handling
>>when an error occurs in detach.  Without this patch, an error in detach stops gdb
>>from exiting.  The error keeps returning to the command line over and over again.
>>
>>I thought I had fixed this earlier by adding a check for errno != ESRCH, but it
>>appears there are other scenarios that may occur.
> 
> 
> Which other errno values are tripping it up?
> 

A bugzilla bug has been opened on a Red Hat kernel with patches that was
causing an EPERM to show up.

> Assuming that it's a good idea to emit only a warning, do we still need
> the errno != ESRCH check?
>

It isn't "needed".  It was meant to not issue any complaint if the process had
been killed externally.  I can remove the check if it is preferred.

> 
>>Ok to commit?
>>
>>-- Jeff J.
>>
>>2003-05-21  Jeff Johnston  <jjohnstn@redhat.com>
>>
>>	* infptrace.c (detach): Call print_sys_errmsg when an error occurs
>>	instead of perror_with_name.
>>
>>[ text/plain ] :
>>
>>Index: infptrace.c
>>===================================================================
>>RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/infptrace.c,v
>>retrieving revision 1.25
>>diff -u -p -r1.25 infptrace.c
>>--- infptrace.c	8 May 2003 20:52:47 -0000	1.25
>>+++ infptrace.c	21 May 2003 21:39:56 -0000
>>@@ -302,7 +302,7 @@ detach (int signal)
>>   ptrace (PT_DETACH, PIDGET (inferior_ptid), (PTRACE_ARG3_TYPE) 1,
>>           signal);
>>   if (errno && errno != ESRCH)
>>-    perror_with_name ("ptrace");
>>+    print_sys_errmsg ("ptrace", errno);
>>   attach_flag = 0;
>> }
>> #endif /* ATTACH_DETACH */
> 
>