From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cagney To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Mention signal fixes in NEWS Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 19:07:00 -0000 Message-id: <40A27605.70805@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-05/msg00377.html Hello, The attached makes mention of all the signal changes in the NEWS file. Thoughts? Andrew 2004-05-12 Andrew Cagney * NEWS: Mention signal fixes. Index: NEWS =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/NEWS,v retrieving revision 1.148 diff -p -u -r1.148 NEWS --- NEWS 7 May 2004 14:34:35 -0000 1.148 +++ NEWS 12 May 2004 18:38:19 -0000 @@ -3,6 +3,14 @@ *** Changes since GDB 6.1: +* Signal trampoline code overhauled + +Many generic problems with GDB's signal handling code have been fixed. +These include: support for sigaltstack and sigaction; backtrace from a +NULL pointer call; backtrace through a signal trampoline; step into +and out of signal handlers; and single-stepping in the signal +trampoline. + * Cygwin support for DWARF 2 added. * Fixed build problem on IRIX 5 >From cagney@gnu.org Wed May 12 19:23:00 2004 From: Andrew Cagney To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Robert Picco , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: new gdb remote packet type Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 19:23:00 -0000 Message-id: <40A279AF.30603@gnu.org> References: <407F2BAB.4060408@hp.com> <40802711.3040104@gnu.org> <4087E8C0.30806@hp.com> <4087EE4B.4010805@gnu.org> <40912015.7070902@hp.com> <40928D64.8010209@gnu.org> <4097D9DE.2030004@hp.com> <40993C21.1040500@gnu.org> <409A95AB.6020101@hp.com> <40A26AF4.4050001@gnu.org> <20040512183055.GA32460@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-05/msg00378.html Content-length: 781 This patch (if 'p' were implemented for gdbserver; I have this lying around, as it happens) would make register fetches default to using individual 'p' packets for every register; this would hurt latency, a lot. That isn't true. The T packet should have previously returned all the important registers (and is needed anyway to make single step fast). This "p" would just fill in the gaps. If after this we still have problems, we can investigate transfering registers in bigger chunks using qPart: (it was concluded that, for the moment, it is too bigger sledge hammer for this simple nut). Robert, wouldn't it be good enough for you to work with !reg->in_g_packet? The original problem is that all registers are in the g-packet and that it was too big. Andrew