Re: [RFC/PATCH] New convenience variable $_exitsignal

[Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>]

>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:

Pedro> I can't say I really understand how any of that argues against my
Pedro> original rationale for not setting $_exitsignal on corefiles (because
Pedro> the inferior has not really exited at the point the core has been
Pedro> generated), rather than point at implementation choices.

Pedro> Now, if one were to instead argue that _user interface_ -wise, it'd
Pedro> make sense to set $_exitsignal, because we also print
Pedro> "Program terminated with signal", (emphasis on "terminated"), then
Pedro> I'd agree:

I may have missed part of the thread, but what is the rationale for
being so precise here?  It seems a bit pedantic to me -- which is fine
if there is a purpose to it, but I couldn't think of one in this case.

That is, gdb has a bit of information that is relevant to the user.  It
is useful to users if we expose it to them in a script-friendly way.  We
already have $_exitsignal, and differentiating between "the program
exited with signal X" and "the program is about to exit with signal X"
doesn't seem particularly handy.

Another consideration along these lines is that I have a branch in
progress for "catch exit" -- it's been waiting for Sergio's work on
these convenience variables.  I think here as well $_exitsignal seems
like a natural fit, even though the process has not technically exited
at the catchpoint.

Tom