Re: RFC: ``detach remote''

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 10:36:48AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> >This whole question put another way:
> >  Obviously, if you start something with "run", you want to end it with
> >"kill".
> >
> >  Obviously, if you start something with "attach", you want to end it
> >with "detach".
> >
> >[These are not hard and fast, of course.  You can detach a run process
> >or kill an attached process.  But you surely see what I mean - they're
> >logical opposites.]
> 
> True,
> 
> There is a tradeoff between convenience and modal behavour.  Need a user 
> survey (however, I suspect the attach/detach argument would win :-).

Actually, I took a couple of surveys about this.  Couldn't find
terribly many people to poll, but the general idea of having the target
resume on detach went over well.

> >  If you start something with "target", how do you end it?  I propose
> >"disconnect".
> 
> The user doesn't start something with target, they ``connect'' using 
> target.  That should more strongly suggest that ``disconnect'' 
> disconnects the connection :-)

Pity the command is "target" instead of "connect", then :)  It would
make the pairings clearer.

> The doco will end up needing a glossary.

So true...

What I think I'll do is submit a patch to add the "disconnect" command,
and then commit a patch to make gdbserver detach or resume the target
on a "D" (detach) packet.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer