Re: [PATCH] SIGTERM handler

[Andrew STUBBS <andrew.stubbs@st.com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> I'm dubious as to the value of this, but why not - patch is OK.  I
> never send GDB a SIGTERM, but I send it SIGKILL on a regular basis.
> I guess it may get SIGTERMs during clean shutdown.

Thanks, committed.

FYI, this is critical here because we use the debugger with an 
alternative simulator (somewhat more accurate than the ISS in GDB). If 
GDB does not shut down cleanly then the simulator does not shut down 
cleanly. This might be bad enough, but sometimes it will happily go on 
simulating an infinite loop and consume all the host CPU. This is 
particularly unhelpful when run as part of a long test and the SIGTERM 
is the result of a timeout.

It also ensures --return-child-result is good, resets connections to 
remote targets and probably helps out many other issues.

Andrew