This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFC] PTRACE_ATTACH problem on new Linux kernels


On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 12:24:32PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >But Roland made a very convincing case for this new behavior; for
> >programs like strace which just pass all signals through, this prevents
> >SIGSTOPs being silently cancelled, which is a definite plus.
> 
> Er, humor me.  Does it work?
> 
> GDB's problem was that it would pass down the sigstop and then promptly 
> get it back again (via wait?).  Wouldn't strace suffer the same problem? 
>  Unless the sigstop really is delivered that is.

Right now, you'll just get it back.  The reason is that one of them is
the wait associated with ptrace delivery of a SIGSTOP, and the other is
the wait associated with our child actually _stopping_.

However, shortly you'll be able to distinguish the two, thanks to
another one of Roland's bright ideas.  The first one will have an event
flag marking it as a signal.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]