From: "J. Johnston" <jjohnstn@redhat.com>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: RFC: fix problems with errors during quitting (killed.exp)
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 18:01:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3F58CF84.7040304@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030905155833.GA27258@nevyn.them.org>
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 11:53:55AM -0400, J. Johnston wrote:
>
>>The following patch fixes the problem that occurs when an error happens
>>while
>>quitting. Often an error() call gets triggered and the poor user is thrown
>>back to the gdb command line where they try to quit again. I made an
>>attempt
>>to fix a similar problem by handling ptrace errors in quitting, however,
>>thread-db.c gets
>>into multiple precarious situations because it has to rely on libthread_db
>>for information. When the thread has been killed/maimed, it gets errors
>>when
>>they are not expected and quitting becomes impossible.
>>
>>My new strategy is to intercept error() calls during quitting. Basically,
>>a simple get/set function is set up to denote when we the user has confirmed
>>a quit. If we get into top.c:throw_exception() and quit has been
>>confirmed, it
>>exits the program. This handles any number of messy kill scenarios and
>>causes
>>no regressions in the current testsuite. It fixes gdb.threads/killed.exp.
>>I made the
>>functions external so other parts of gdb can register a confirmed quit if
>>necessary. I could
>>make these routines static if this feature is not needed. I chose to exit
>>with the
>>code being passed on the jump. There may be a better constant choice.
>>
>>If anyone can think of scenario that this code is not going to handle
>>correctly that might
>>not be exercised by the testsuite, please let me know.
>>
>>Tested on x86 and ia64.
>>
>>Comments?
>
>
> My immediate concern is, does killed.exp leave a stopped binary around?
>
It doesn't, but the debugged process going away was the cause of the error in the
first place. I don't know if there are can't-quit scenarios where a process
will be left around. Some fork/exec nightmare perhaps??, but I'm not sure what
gdb could be expected to do in such a situation.
-- Jeff J.
> Other than that I like it.
>
>
>>2003-09-04 Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com>
>>
>> * top.h (get_quit_confirmed, set_quit_confirmed): New prototypes.
>> * top.c (get_quit_confirmed, set_quit_confirmed): New functions.
>> (throw_exception): If quit confirmed, exit instead of jumping.
>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-09-05 18:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-09-05 15:54 J. Johnston
2003-09-05 15:58 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-09-05 18:01 ` J. Johnston [this message]
2003-09-10 18:36 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-09-11 20:11 ` J. Johnston
2003-09-11 22:38 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-09-12 15:38 ` J. Johnston
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3F58CF84.7040304@redhat.com \
--to=jjohnstn@redhat.com \
--cc=drow@mvista.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox