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