Re: does it make sense to stop on SIGPRIO?

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>]

Joel Brobecker wrote:
> I've been looking at how we decide what to when we receive a signal.
> We have some code that disables stop&printing for various signals
> because these signals are used as part of normal thread operations.
> 
>   /* These signals are used internally by user-level thread
>      implementations.  (See signal(5) on Solaris.)  Like the above
>      signals, a healthy program receives and handles them as part of
>      its normal operation.  */
> 
> We do the same for other signals, which are not error signals:
> 
>   /* Signals that are not errors should not normally enter the debugger.  */
> 
> On LynxOS, changing the priority of a thread automatically causes
> a SIGPRIO signal to be raised.  I think that SIGPRIO falls more
> into the second category (not a signal used to indicate an error).
> 
> Are there any known situations where we would want a SIGPRIO would
> be indicating something abnormal, or significant enough that we would
> want to stop?
> 
> Thanks,


I think it might be peculiar to LynxOS.  Most google hits either refer 
to gdb or Lynx.