From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23548 invoked by alias); 3 May 2013 18:13:18 -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 23538 invoked by uid 89); 3 May 2013 18:13:18 -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 18:13:17 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r43IDEYb024884 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 3 May 2013 14:13:14 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r43IDC10014112; Fri, 3 May 2013 14:13:13 -0400 Message-ID: <5183FE38.8040202@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 18:13:00 -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> <5183C881.7030801@redhat.com> <1367602748.2243.13.camel@soleil> In-Reply-To: <1367602748.2243.13.camel@soleil> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00062.txt.bz2 On 05/03/2013 06:39 PM, Philippe Waroquiers wrote: > On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 15:24 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: >> 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. ;-) > Here is an updated version. OK, thanks. -- Pedro Alves