why SIGINT top stop the process, why was not SIGSTOP used ?

why SIGINT top stop the process, why was not SIGSTOP used ?

[paawan oza]

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.

















      

Re: why SIGINT top stop the process, why was not SIGSTOP used ?

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 08:34:54AM -0800, paawan oza wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I have been changing gdb.
> as gdb uses ctrl+c (send SIGINT) to stop the process......
> I am also doing the same.

GDB is not sending the SIGINT.  On most systems, GDB puts the process
in the foreground terminal process group, and the operating system
is responsible for sending the SIGINT.

Using SIGSTOP has some other weird effects on job control, especially
in threaded applications.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery