From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15606 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2007 11:35:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 15221 invoked by uid 48); 18 Apr 2007 11:34:56 -0000 Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:35:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070418113456.15219.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "mark at klomp dot org" To: frysk-bugzilla@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20070417225454.4389.cagney@redhat.com> References: <20070417225454.4389.cagney@redhat.com> Reply-To: sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug general/4389] ptrace in event-loop causes TestBreakpoints inferior to sig-seg-v X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo Mailing-List: contact frysk-bugzilla-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: frysk-bugzilla-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-q2/txt/msg00125.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From mark at klomp dot org 2007-04-18 12:34 ------- (In reply to comment #2) > and it's sending PT_CONT of signal 5/SIGTRAP to the process. Per other > discussion, if in a signal handler this can kill the inferior. Not in this case since the funit-breakpoints uses the SA_NODEFER workaround. The test does check that SIGTRAP and segfaults not caused by frysk itself are propagated correctly. See bug #3997 for a discussion about this. I'll checkout the branch and test first against the simpler unit tests first. TestTaskObserverCode which only does a set breakpoint, run, check that it got hit (maybe expand it to then continue running again), the TestTaskObserverInstruction test, the TestTaskObserverInstructionSigReturn and the combined TestTaskObserverInstructionAndCode tests. If those work then we can proceed with the all singing and dancing TestBreakpoints which is really a combination of all those tests. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4389 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.