From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-33763-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 15750 invoked by alias); 10 Feb 2009 15:47:38 -0000
Received: (qmail 15741 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Feb 2009 15:47:37 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:47:29 +0000
Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n1AFlNoh015451; 	Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:47:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n1AFlMsC025262; 	Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:47:23 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:47:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200902101547.n1AFlMsC025262@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: drow@false.org
CC: gdb@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20090210152657.GA27195@caradoc.them.org> (message from Daniel 	Jacobowitz on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:26:57 -0500)
Subject: Re: Regression
References: <200902101517.n1AFH7YP000549@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20090210152657.GA27195@caradoc.them.org>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-02/txt/msg00080.txt.bz2

> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:26:57 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 04:17:08PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Hi Daniel,
> > 
> > The following commit breaks the signal command on OpenBSD.  Can you
> > please revert it for now?
> 
> I'd rather fix OpenBSD than rebreak Linux.  Could you expand on the
> problem?

I don't quite understand what's happening here, but I get the
following new failure:

FAIL: gdb.base/annota1.exp: send SIGUSR1

and some more fallout from that (and similar failures in annota3.exp).
It seems that if we've just hit a breakpoint and then do "signal
SIGUSR1" we never enter the signal handler or ignore the breakpoint in
the signal handler.

I'm somewhat surprised to hear that the same test doesn't fail on x86
Linux for you.