This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: does it make sense to stop on SIGPRIO?
- From: Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>
- To: brobecker at adacore dot com
- Cc: gdb at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 14:12:55 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: does it make sense to stop on SIGPRIO?
- References: <20110105072245.GA28888@adacore.com>
> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 11:22:45 +0400
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
>
> I've been looking at how we decide what to when we receive a signal.
> We have some code that disables stop&printing for various signals
> because these signals are used as part of normal thread operations.
>
> /* These signals are used internally by user-level thread
> implementations. (See signal(5) on Solaris.) Like the above
> signals, a healthy program receives and handles them as part of
> its normal operation. */
>
> We do the same for other signals, which are not error signals:
>
> /* Signals that are not errors should not normally enter the debugger. */
>
> On LynxOS, changing the priority of a thread automatically causes
> a SIGPRIO signal to be raised. I think that SIGPRIO falls more
> into the second category (not a signal used to indicate an error).
>
> Are there any known situations where we would want a SIGPRIO would
> be indicating something abnormal, or significant enough that we would
> want to stop?
Given that SIGPRIO seems to be something rather un-UNIXy (OpenBSD,
Linux and Solaris don't seem to have it), I think you can do here
whatever you like ;).