From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10299 invoked by alias); 2 Feb 2004 18:27:25 -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 10227 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2004 18:27:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Feb 2004 18:27:24 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F9C42B99; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 13:27:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <401E968C.1020908@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 18:27:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Non-executable stack on SPARC References: <200401252350.i0PNoB1O021806@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <40153E6D.2050805@gnu.org> <200402011754.i11HsTdQ000570@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00006.txt.bz2 > Assuming that for VLIW gdb replaces the entire instruction bundle with a > breakpoint, a breakpoint instruction can only ever generate a sigtrap > (et.al.) (if executed) or sigsegv (if not accessible) so provided there > is a breakpoint at the PC I don't think there is any possability of > confusion (but again ignore decr pc after break :-). > > So does this mean you're convinced that we can add SIGSEGV to the list > currently consisting of SIGILL and SIGEMT unconditionally? I haven't > seen any ill effects on IA-32 and AMD64 (which are decr pc after > break). I'll happilly check in the origional patch in mainline too. We've found no evidence to the contrary - if something later breaks we can add that to the testsuite. Andrew