This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Re: x86 linux GDB and SIGALRM
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