Re: does it make sense to stop on SIGPRIO?

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>]

Michael Snyder wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 

Meant to imply -- in which case you can do what you like.

;-)