From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30944 invoked by alias); 5 Aug 2016 01:04:20 -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 30929 invoked by uid 89); 5 Aug 2016 01:04:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=baldwin, Baldwin, H*M:cdd0 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 05 Aug 2016 01:04:18 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 483253B71B; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 01:04:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u7514FZX009107; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 21:04:16 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR gdb/18653: gdb disturbs inferior's inherited signal dispositions To: John Baldwin , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <1470332251-10857-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <2148041.k6fglmTO5R@ralph.baldwin.cx> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2016 01:04:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2148041.k6fglmTO5R@ralph.baldwin.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-08/txt/msg00085.txt.bz2 On 08/04/2016 07:37 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > Perhaps consider saving/restore the entire 'struct sigaction' instead > of just the sa_handler field given you are already requiring sigaction? Indeed, I think I should, because signal masks are not reset at exec time either. Forgot about that. Thanks for suggesting this. I'll give it a try soon. Thanks, Pedro Alves