* traditional sigtramp system?
@ 2004-04-02 22:37 Andrew Cagney
2004-04-04 16:26 ` Mark Kettenis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2004-04-02 22:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches
Hello,
Can anyone point me at a "more traditional" signal trampoline system?
Where traditional means that, when delivering a signal, the program is
resumed at the first instruction of the signal trampoline, and not the
first instruction of the signal handler (as is now often the case).
The frame unwinders appear to have made huge chunks of infrun's signal
trampoline logic redundant and I'd prefer to have a system that I can
test it on.
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: traditional sigtramp system?
2004-04-02 22:37 traditional sigtramp system? Andrew Cagney
@ 2004-04-04 16:26 ` Mark Kettenis
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Mark Kettenis @ 2004-04-04 16:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cagney; +Cc: gdb-patches
FreeBSD/i386, OpenBSD/i386, OpenBSD/sparc to name a few.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-04-04 16:26 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-04-02 22:37 traditional sigtramp system? Andrew Cagney
2004-04-04 16:26 ` Mark Kettenis
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox