From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27734 invoked by alias); 16 Sep 2008 16:12:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 27724 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Sep 2008 16:12:07 -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; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:11:28 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F365410CD9; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:11:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE4F2104B9; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:11:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Kfd9B-0006rS-BC; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:11:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:12:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Phil Muldoon Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: unwindonsignal variable question Message-ID: <20080916161125.GA26345@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Phil Muldoon , gdb@sourceware.org References: <48CFD764.2050405@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48CFD764.2050405@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-09/txt/msg00102.txt.bz2 On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 04:57:24PM +0100, Phil Muldoon wrote: > Setting this to "on" fixes the most problematic aspects of gnats pr 2495. > (This is where an exception is raised in a C++ function executed by > inferior function call, and no in-frame exception handler results in a > sigabrt being delivered to the inferior). > > As this is a very useful flag, and it only seems to apply in inferior > function calls, I am curious why it appears to default as "off", > requiring the user to perform: > > set unwindonsignal on > > (I'm not advocating changing it, just curious if there is a particular > reason for it to be this way). And also, if there would be known > side-effects to having it to default as on. Well, it makes things harder if the abort is what you're trying to debug. It would be nice if there was a single command that would do this: discard the dummy frame and clear the received signal... -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery