Re: GDB (not) handling SIGINT...?

On Thu, 2018-11-15 at 18:04 +0000, Pedro Alves wrote:> 
> > I guess there is now: using PTRACE_SEIZE instead of PTRACE_ATTACH,
> > which will allow you to later send PTRACE_INTERRUPT: presumably if this
> > ere used would solve the problem for attached processes anyway...?
> Yup, assuming we're OK with "ctrl-c" in the GDB console not
> resulting in SIGINT.

It seems to me that, as long as nopass is set on SIGINT, that would be
the expected/correct behavior... is there something unexpected about
the way it would work?

I'll look at using SIGSTOP instead of SIGINT, for my situation.