From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30264 invoked by alias); 10 Feb 2009 16:35:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 29886 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Feb 2009 16:35:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from web36203.mail.mud.yahoo.com (HELO web36203.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (209.191.68.229) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:34:57 +0000 Received: (qmail 2722 invoked by uid 60001); 10 Feb 2009 16:34:54 -0000 Received: from [123.238.26.123] by web36203.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:34:54 PST Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:35:00 -0000 From: paawan oza Reply-To: paawan1982@yahoo.com Subject: why SIGINT top stop the process, why was not SIGSTOP used ? To: gdb@sourceware.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <911642.1896.qm@web36203.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2009-02/txt/msg00083.txt.bz2 Hello, I have been changing gdb. as gdb uses ctrl+c (send SIGINT) to stop the process...... I am also doing the same. but I have observed with gdb-6.7 that if process has blocked SIGINT, then actually gdb will not get SIGINT back. I think this mechanism has been there for a long time. my doubt is : why is this design of SIGINT? why can not we use SIGSTOP ? because process cant block SIGSTOP. though default gdb is configured to pass signal SIGSTOP (we can set it to 0) but instead of SIGINT, cant we use SIGSTOP to stop the process ? Regards, ..Paawan.