From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18206 invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2010 17:31:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 18031 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Mar 2010 17:31:41 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:31:34 +0000 Received: from int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.18]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o2HHVXgW005512 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:31:33 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o2HHVWfh001020; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:31:32 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o2HHVVea031014; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:31:31 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 2991A379848; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:31:30 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: FYI: add missing debug_linux_nat References: Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:31:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Tom Tromey's message of "Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:16:39 -0600") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 X-SW-Source: 2010-03/txt/msg00628.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey writes: Tom> I'm checking this in. Tom> I saw a strange message today: Tom> LND: Sending signal 11 to process 13765 Tom> This is caused by a missing test of debug_linux_nat. Thanks to Pedro Tom> for pointing out the linux-nat.c debugging print convention. I've also committed this to the 7.1 branch. Tom