Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:53:38 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: ptrace single-stepping change breaks Wine |
| |
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > I'm getting the feeling that the question of whether to step into > signal handlers is orthogonal to single-stepping; maybe it should be a > separate ptrace operation.
I really don't see why. If a controlling process is asking for single-stepping, then it damn well should get it. It it doesn't want to single-step through a signal handler, then it could decide to just put a breakpoint on the return point (possibly by modifying the signal handler save area).
It's not like single-stepping into the signal handler in any way removes any information (while _not_ single-stepping into it clearly does).
With the patch I just posted (assuming it works for people), Wine should at least have the choice. The behaviour now should be:
- if the app sets TF on its own, it will cause a SIGTRAP which it can catch. - if the debugger sets TF with SINGLESTEP, it will single-step into a signal handler. - it the app sets TF _and_ you ptrace it, you the ptracer will see the debug event and catch it. However, doing a "continue" at that point will remove the TF flag (and always has), the app will normally then never see the trap. You can do a "signal SIGTRAP" to actually force the trap handler to tun, but that one won't actually single-step (it's a "continue" in all other senses).
It sounds like the third case is what wine wants.
Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |