Re: RFA: patch to infptrace.c

["J. Johnston" <jjohnstn at redhat dot com>]

Kevin Buettner wrote:
> On May 21,  6:31pm, J. Johnston wrote:
>
>
> > The attached patch changes the ptrace detach call to not perform error handling
> > when an error occurs in detach.  Without this patch, an error in detach stops gdb
> > from exiting.  The error keeps returning to the command line over and over again.
> >
> > I thought I had fixed this earlier by adding a check for errno != ESRCH, but it
> > appears there are other scenarios that may occur.
>
>
> Which other errno values are tripping it up?

A bugzilla bug has been opened on a Red Hat kernel with patches that was
causing an EPERM to show up.

> Assuming that it's a good idea to emit only a warning, do we still need
> the errno != ESRCH check?

It isn't "needed".  It was meant to not issue any complaint if the process had
been killed externally.  I can remove the check if it is preferred.

> > Ok to commit?
> >
> > -- Jeff J.
> >
> > 2003-05-21  Jeff Johnston  <jjohnstn@redhat.com>
> >
> > 	* infptrace.c (detach): Call print_sys_errmsg when an error occurs
> > 	instead of perror_with_name.
> >
> > [ text/plain ] :
> >
> > Index: infptrace.c
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/infptrace.c,v
> > retrieving revision 1.25
> > diff -u -p -r1.25 infptrace.c
> > --- infptrace.c	8 May 2003 20:52:47 -0000	1.25
> > +++ infptrace.c	21 May 2003 21:39:56 -0000
> > @@ -302,7 +302,7 @@ detach (int signal)
> >   ptrace (PT_DETACH, PIDGET (inferior_ptid), (PTRACE_ARG3_TYPE) 1,
> >           signal);
> >   if (errno && errno != ESRCH)
> > -    perror_with_name ("ptrace");
> > +    print_sys_errmsg ("ptrace", errno);
> >   attach_flag = 0;
> > }
> > #endif /* ATTACH_DETACH */