Re: remote.c's "async", "extended-async" back ends

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>]

"J.T. Conklin" wrote:
> 
> I noticed that if we adopted the step over range command, I'd have to
> add what I've done to remote_resume() to remote_async_resume().  This
> is not a problem of course.
> 
> I seem to recall that the goal is to merge (or perhaps replace) the
> async remote back ends with the sync versions.  What must be done in
> order to move this forward?  As one of the remote.c maintainers, I'd
> like to get rid of this largely duplicated code.
> 
> I recently objected to removing the sync event loop.  If this is the
> holdup, I'm willing to spend some time to solve the problem we have
> with stopping the target when the async event loop is active.

See the TODO file.  There is a really nasty road block in how GDB
connects to the target.  Briefly the ``target xyz abc'' goes straight
down through to the target vector - GDB's kernel gets no say in what
happens.

The ``target xyz abc'' command should go to GDB's kernel and then GDB's
kernel should invoke the correct target methods.

	Andrew