From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27660 invoked by alias); 6 Mar 2007 14:31:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 27651 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Mar 2007 14:31:46 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from alnrmhc15.comcast.net (HELO alnrmhc15.comcast.net) (204.127.225.95) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:31:36 +0000 Received: from [172.22.0.103] (failure[71.63.50.10]) by comcast.net (alnrmhc15) with ESMTP id <20070306143134b1500a3k1be>; Tue, 6 Mar 2007 14:31:35 +0000 Message-ID: <45ED7B32.5060100@ringle.org> Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:31:00 -0000 From: Jon Ringle User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jon Ringle , Michael Snyder , gdb@sourceware.org, Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: gdbserver signals interfere with {next,step{,i}} References: <45EC780E.60705@ringle.org> <20070305201726.GA11385@caradoc.them.org> <45ECA592.5080802@ringle.org> <1173145366.29183.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> <45ECC84A.9020702@ringle.org> <1173147085.29183.61.camel@localhost.localdomain> <45ECD0DE.206@ringle.org> <20070306122541.GA1414@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20070306122541.GA1414@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2007-03/txt/msg00082.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 09:24:30PM -0500, Jon Ringle wrote: > >> My target uses uclibc-0.9.28 rather than a glibc libc. Could that be a >> factor here? >> > > Yes, it certainly could be. > > When I use a native gdb-6.6 on the uclibc target, I don't see any SIGUSR1 signals being intercepted by gdb (so I don't have to do 'handle SIGUSR1 nostop noprint') and I see correct behaviour using 'next'. What would gdbserver-6.6 be doing different that a native gdb-6.6 in regards to signal handling? Jon