Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:19:28 -0500 From: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> To: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: bland@mail.ru Subject: Re: truss issue Message-ID: <20031215161928.A68001@cons.org> In-Reply-To: <200312152114.hBFLDweF068169@gw.catspoiler.org>; from truckman@FreeBSD.ORG on Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 01:13:58PM -0800 References: <20031215084226.W81321@carver.gumbysoft.com> <200312152114.hBFLDweF068169@gw.catspoiler.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Don Lewis wrote on Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 01:13:58PM -0800: > On 15 Dec, Doug White wrote: > > > My reading of it is that it is truss hitting itself with the same signal > > that killed the process that it was tracing so that truss will exit > > showing that it was killed by a signal. So this is actually implementing > > the requested functionality. Processes that exit due to a signal don't > > return an exit code. It seems keyed on 'sigexit' whatever that is. No, they return a numeric exit code. But there also is a portion not included in the returned number which indicates that the reason for the exit was a signal and which signal it was. > Hmn, I wonder if it would be cleaner to exec() the executable to be > traced in the parent process and run truss in the child ... I think I misunderstand. The parent is usually your login shell, you don't want that one to exec() anything. Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ No warranty. This email is probably produced by one of my cats stepping on the keys. No, I don't have an infinite number of cats.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031215161928.A68001>