truss issue
Martin Cracauer
cracauer at cons.org
Mon Dec 15 13:19:31 PST 2003
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.
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list