From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9911 invoked by alias); 3 May 2013 14:24:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 9850 invoked by uid 89); 3 May 2013 14:24:08 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-9.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 May 2013 14:24:07 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r43EO3sT024317 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 3 May 2013 10:24:03 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r43EO1vR032006; Fri, 3 May 2013 10:24:02 -0400 Message-ID: <5183C881.7030801@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 14:24:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130311 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Philippe Waroquiers CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: fix handling of catch signal SIGTRAP/SIGINT References: <1367433782.2626.142.camel@soleil> <5182B441.3000703@redhat.com> <1367531384.3007.83.camel@soleil> In-Reply-To: <1367531384.3007.83.camel@soleil> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00053.txt.bz2 On 05/02/2013 10:49 PM, Philippe Waroquiers wrote: >>>From the doc and the above, I understand the idea is to have 3 different > "use cases": > 1. catch signal > 2. catch signal all > 3. catch signal ... 1 or more explicit signals ... > (the explicit signals are the same as what can be given to handle). > The line above properly implemented the difference between 1 and 2 > but was also used for signals listed in 3. This was ok for not internals > signals, but was always ignoring internal signals member of > signals_to_be_caught. > So, I think the condition "|| !INTERNAL_SIGNAL" is still needed > otherwise the case 1. will change of behaviour. Indeed. Makes sense. I should have checked the manual. >>>From my point of view, the behaviour described by the doc is quite > ok (but needs this patch :). I agree. > As described above, I think the '|| !INTERNAL_SIGNAL' is needed to > only catch non internal signals when 'catch signal' was given by the > user rather than 'catch signal all'. Agreed. >> There are other uses of INTERNAL_SIGNAL(signal_number) in the file. >> Wouldn't they need updating too? > I checked the other uses, I think these are ok e.g. INTERNAL_SIGNAL > is not used when an explicit list of signal is given. That's good info. > Thanks for the detailed review. Waiting for more feedback from Tromey, > I will already prepare another version. Knowing the "catch signal" vs "catch signal all" difference, the updated patch becomes obviously correct then. If you had sent it, I'd probably okay it. ;-) Thanks, -- Pedro Alves