From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13823 invoked by alias); 13 May 2004 09:33:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13811 invoked from network); 13 May 2004 09:33:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 13 May 2004 09:33:19 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40A1BF2A66; Thu, 13 May 2004 05:33:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 20396-01; Thu, 13 May 2004 05:33:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1345) id C13DDF2A64; Thu, 13 May 2004 05:33:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul Hilfinger To: drow@false.org Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20040512135530.GA25764@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Wed, 12 May 2004 09:55:30 -0400) Subject: Re: GDB interaction with sigwait under Redhat 9.0 References: <20040512083348.55D63F2D8B@nile.gnat.com> <20040512135530.GA25764@nevyn.them.org> Message-Id: <20040513093318.C13DDF2A64@nile.gnat.com> Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 09:33:00 -0000 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nile.gnat.com X-SW-Source: 2004-05/txt/msg00079.txt.bz2 > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 04:33:48AM -0400, Paul Hilfinger wrote: > > > > I recently submitted PR threads/1641 concerning a problem we seem to > > be having with Redhat 9.0 (Linux ... 2.4.21-9.ELsmp #1 SMP Thu Jan 8 > > 17:08:56 EST 2004 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux). It appears that on that > > system, there is a new, malign interaction of sigwait in the inferior > > with ptrace. First, GDB (head version from about mid-April), no > > longer sees signals sent to an inferior that is waiting on sigwait. Second, > > GDB's manipulation with the inferior causes sigwaits (at least on > > pthreaded programs) to continue with a non-zero status code (EINTR to > > be precise). Does anyone know anything about this rather drastic change > > in sigwait's behavior? I intend to submit a GNU/Linux bug report, unless > > someone knows a good reason for this new (apparently undocumented) spec. > > However, you never > said what version of the Linux kernel you were using - it does not look > like 2.6 can produce this result. But then I don't see how an > unmodified 2.4 can either. Sorry; I thought the 2.4.21-9.ELsmp part of the uname -a line was sufficient. In fact, not being a kernel hacker myself, I'm not sure what information you're looking for here. Paul Hilfinger