From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 15 13:19:31 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C103616A4CF; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:19:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from schlepper.zs64.net (schlepper.zs64.net [212.12.50.230]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39DC243D31; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:19:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cracauer@schlepper.zs64.net) Received: from schlepper.zs64.net (schlepper [212.12.50.230]) by schlepper.zs64.net (8.12.10/8.11.1) with ESMTP id hBFLJSZR068055; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:19:28 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from cracauer@schlepper.zs64.net) Received: (from cracauer@localhost) by schlepper.zs64.net (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBFLJS3C068054; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:19:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:19:28 -0500 From: Martin Cracauer To: Don Lewis Message-ID: <20031215161928.A68001@cons.org> References: <20031215084226.W81321@carver.gumbysoft.com> <200312152114.hBFLDweF068169@gw.catspoiler.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200312152114.hBFLDweF068169@gw.catspoiler.org>; from truckman@FreeBSD.ORG on Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 01:13:58PM -0800 cc: cracauer@FreeBSD.ORG cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG cc: bland@mail.ru Subject: Re: truss issue X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:19:31 -0000 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 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.