From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2748 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2008 22:55:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 2738 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Feb 2008 22:55:01 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:54:42 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBAA698140; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:54:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A46BC9811F; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:54:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JUVAZ-0007sH-A9; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:54:35 -0500 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:56:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Antony KING Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Any solution to not being able to interrupt step in GDB ? Message-ID: <20080227225435.GA30252@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Antony KING , gdb@sourceware.org References: <47C5DD59.5090608@st.com> <20080227221218.GA27709@caradoc.them.org> <47C5E7E8.4000309@st.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47C5E7E8.4000309@st.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-02/txt/msg00238.txt.bz2 On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 10:44:56PM +0000, Antony KING wrote: > The signal handler is the restored default handler, "handle_sigint". My > target interface only substitutes that default SIGINT handler when > implementing the target_wait() functionality (it is modelled on remote.c). > > My first thought was that QUIT should achieve the effect I need but > quit_flag, as was pointed out, is not being set soon enough. Also, > forcing an immediate_quit is not suitable since I would like to stop the > stepping cleanly with a target SIGINT (plus it breaks my target > interface, but that is my problem :-). Why doesn't quit_flag get set? That's how I think we ought to do this. Avoid immediate_quit, that's dangerous to mess with. I'm not sure why you'd want to use a target SIGINT for this case. If we're between steps, we should just make sure we don't send another step. I suppose I hadn't thought about the case between stepping and waiting... -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery