RFC: better signal names?

[Dmitry V. Levin]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 04:13:18PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> Currently we emit something like this:
> 
> --- {si_signo=SIGCHLD, si_code=CLD_EXITED, si_pid=19483, si_status=0, 
> si_utime=0, si_stime=0} (Child exited) ---
> --- {si_signo=SIGWINCH, si_code=SI_USER, si_pid=15407, si_uid=0} (Window 
> changed) ---
> --- {si_signo=SIGSTOP, si_code=SI_USER, si_pid=15407, si_uid=0} (Stopped 
> (signal)) ---
> --- Stopped (signal) by SIGSTOP ---
> --- {si_signo=SIGTSTP, si_code=SI_USER, si_pid=15407, si_uid=0} (Stopped) 
> ---
> --- Stopped by SIGTSTP ---
> --- {si_signo=SIGTTIN, si_code=SI_USER, si_pid=15407, si_uid=0} (Stopped 
> (tty input)) ---
> --- Stopped (tty input) by SIGTTIN ---
> 
> The part where we try to emit a "descriptive" signal string
> does not look like succeeding in this regard: it's often
> barely comprehensible, and sometimes plainly wrong.

I find the technical part of these messages (produced by printsiginfo)
much more informative than the descriptive part (produced by strsignal).
I suppose we can safely drop this strsignal-made part.


-- 
ldv
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.strace.io/pipermail/strace-devel/attachments/20120315/edb000a3/attachment.bin>