Mention signal fixes in NEWS

Andrew Cagney
2004-05-12T19:07:00Z

Hello,

The attached makes mention of all the signal changes in the NEWS file.

Thoughts?

Andrew
2004-05-12 Andrew Cagney <cagney@redhat.com>

* 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 <cagney@gnu.org>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Cc: Robert Picco <Robert.Picco@hp.com>, 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:<regset> (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