On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 14:07:53 +1000, Robert Lunnon wrote:
> OK, what do you mean the kernel doesn't allow you to do that - Suspend a
> thread or ??? Why not just write a SIGSTOP
SIGSTOP has process scope on NPTL, I think.
If SIGUSR1 isn't handled, then stuff will break mysteriously. Essentially
al
On Sunday 10 July 2005 09:38, Robert Shearman wrote:
> Robert Lunnon wrote:
> >To implement a Solaris debugger I have traced the wineservers startup and
> >there is something I don't understand. I get the following stack trace:
> >
> >send_thread_signal+0x4a(80aab90, 10)
> >stop_thread+0x1f(80aab90
Robert Lunnon wrote:
To implement a Solaris debugger I have traced the wineservers startup and
there is something I don't understand. I get the following stack trace:
send_thread_signal+0x4a(80aab90, 10)
stop_thread+0x1f(80aab90)
suspend_process+0x4d(81c72a8)
debugger_attach+0xf1(81c72a8, 81d1
To implement a Solaris debugger I have traced the wineservers startup and
there is something I don't understand. I get the following stack trace:
send_thread_signal+0x4a(80aab90, 10)
stop_thread+0x1f(80aab90)
suspend_process+0x4d(81c72a8)
debugger_attach+0xf1(81c72a8, 81d1b58)
req_debug_process+0
