Re: truss issue

From: Martin Cracauer <cracauer_at_cons.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:19:28 -0500
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_at_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.
Received on Mon Dec 15 2003 - 12:19:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:34 UTC