Re: [RFA] Re: x86 linux GDB and SIGALRM

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>]

Mark Kettenis wrote:
> 
>    From: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@cygnus.com>
>    Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 19:43:48 -0400 (EDT)
> 
>    Hmmm, I am maintaining the event loop, not the handle_inferior_event stuff.
>    The guru there is Stan. Or so I thought.
> 
> Elena,
> 
> Seems I got a bit confused.  Sorry I bothered you with the previous
> infrun.c change too.
> 
> Andrew,
> 
> Do you think you can point me at the right guru, and put him in
> MAINTAINERS?

As Elena noted, Stan is the best person for that file.  Unfortunatly he
has washed his hands of all responsibility :-( :-)

I think your analysis of the history is correct.  I'd just like to
(infrun.c is the most frail code of code in GDB) see a testsuite
addition (is there one already?) and a yay from someone with threads on
a non-linux target.  I just have a feeling that creating a test case
isn't easy :-( Hmm, does steping through a SIGBUS trigger the behavour?

Actually, lets see:

With out the patch:

	(gdb) handle SIGBUS pass print nostop
	(gdb) b *0x1014064
	(gdb) run
	Breakpoint 3, 0x1014064 in test_ld ()
	(gdb) stepi
	Program received signal SIGBUS, Bus error.
	0x1014064 in test_ld ()

with the patch:

	(gdb) handle SIGBUS pass print nostop
	(gdb) break *0x1014064
	Breakpoint 1 at 0x1014064
	(gdb) run
	Breakpoint 1, 0x1014064 in test_ld ()
	(gdb) stepi

	Program received signal SIGBUS, Bus error.
	0x103ff10 in ?? ()
	(gdb) 

is that the intended behavour?  I should note that this is a simulator
target which can single step through exceptions.  Normal targets most
likely just continue until the exception returns?

	Andrew