From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22009 invoked by alias); 5 Jun 2014 01:11:21 -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 21989 invoked by uid 89); 5 Jun 2014 01:11:20 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-yk0-f181.google.com Received: from mail-yk0-f181.google.com (HELO mail-yk0-f181.google.com) (209.85.160.181) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 05 Jun 2014 01:11:18 +0000 Received: by mail-yk0-f181.google.com with SMTP id 131so256068ykp.40 for ; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 18:11:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.62.130 with SMTP id y2mr20245163yhc.158.1401930676944; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 18:11:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.150.70 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Jun 2014 18:11:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140604182529.GA14897@blade.nx> References: <20140604100755.GA7570@blade.nx> <20140604100957.GC7570@blade.nx> <834n017z8w.fsf@gnu.org> <20140604133603.GC10121@blade.nx> <83sink7pww.fsf@gnu.org> <20140604142844.GB11730@blade.nx> <20140604182529.GA14897@blade.nx> Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 01:11:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v3] Demangler crash handler From: Doug Evans To: Gary Benson Cc: Eli Zaretskii , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Andrew Burgess , Florian Weimer , Mark Kettenis , Pedro Alves , Tom Tromey Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg00227.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Gary Benson wrote: > Doug Evans wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Gary Benson wrote: >> > Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> > > > From: Gary Benson >> > > > >> > > > Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> > > > > > From: Gary Benson >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Eli pointed out that SIGSEGV is an ANSI-standard signal >> > > > > > but I found various other SIGSEGV checks in GDB >> > > > > >> > > > > They should all be removed. >> > > > >> > > > Ok, I'll do this. Should I commit the change as obvious? >> > > >> > > I think so, yes. >> > >> > Ok, I'll do that. >> >> Are we talking about #ifdef SIGSEGV in, e.g., common/signals.c? > > Yes. > >> If one goes down this path, I think the patch while perhaps >> "obvious" would become a bit involved (why just SEGV?) and >> thus the obviousness diminishes. >> I think it diminishes to a point where the obviousness is gone. >> Please submit any such patch for review. > > Having started looking into this I am inclined to agree. > > I couldn't find an authoritative list, but the Linux kernel sources > indicate that SIGINT, SIGILL, SIGABRT, SIGFPE, SIGSEGV and SIGTERM > are ANSI. Eli said that list agreed with his references, so I'll > work on unwrapping those. > > I will post the patch for review. One thing that I think should be considered is that we'll go from the simple state of "just ifdef every signal" in places like common/signals.c to having some signals you are required to not ifdef and some you do, and needing to know which category every signal fits in. I don't have a strong opinion, but I'm ok with the status quo.