Re: SIG32/SIGTRAP issues

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 06:52:30PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> >Funny, no one reports this for months and this is the third report I've
> >seen in a week...  At the bottom of this message is a workaround.  I'm
> >not proposing it be committed, since it's obviously pretty gross.  The
> >real issue is the concept of thread_stratum and core_stratum as
> >separate from process_stratum.  I don't think it's appropriate - if we
> >are debugging a core and process at the same time this isn't how it
> >should work.  This ties in to all the make-targets-a-real-stack thing -
> >I'm not entirely convinced on that score either.
> 
> GDB Speak :-)  `An inferior stack', separate to the stratum.  Having 
> implemented the idea, I'm pretty much convinced it's the correct 
> approach (although, as you demonstrate, not absolutly necessary).

Hrm, interesting.  A stack doesn't seem logical for that, just support
for multiple targets... pull one out when you want it.  That could be
adapted to solve this problem.  Let's see the code :)


===


HJ, I'm pretty sure your patch won't work right in this case:

# gdb static-app corefile
(gdb) run

There will be no new call to the objfile hook, and no new pushes, and
thread-db won't load.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer