Re: Interrupting remote targets from GDB

[Kevin Buettner <kevinb at redhat dot com>]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:50:56 -0500
Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:

> Fine by me; can we also add a word about what to do with interrupts
> when the target is stopped?  I believe they should be dropped rather
> than responded to, per conversation on gdb@ earlier this month.

I've added one sentence to the text I posted earlier.

Here's the revised text:

    When a program on the remote target is running, GDB may attempt
    to interrupt it by sending a `Ctrl-C' or a BREAK, control of which
    is specified via GDB's `remotebreak' setting.  The precise meaning
    of BREAK is defined by the transport mechanism and may, in fact,
    be undefined.  `Ctrl-C', on the other hand, is defined for all
    transport mechanisms and is represented by sending the single byte
    0x03.  `Ctrl-C' must not be sent as part of a packet as defined in
    the "Overview".
    
    Stubs are not required to recognize these interrupt mechanisms and
    the precise meaning associated with receipt of the interrupt is
    implementation defined.  If the stub is successful at interrupting
    the running program, it is expected that it will send one of the
    `Stop Reply Packets' to GDB as a result of successfully stopping
    the program.  Interrupts received while the program is stopped will
    be discarded.