[RFA] infcmd.c: Fix UI problem in attach_command

Jim Blandy jimb@redhat.com
Mon Jun 28 22:14:00 GMT 2004


Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:

> On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 07:58:57PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:14:18 +0200
> > > From: Corinna Vinschen <vinschen@redhat.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Do you (or anyone else, like Elena) know why do we relinquish the
> > > > terminal to the inferior while loading the symbol table?  It sounds
> > > > like a strange thing to do at this point.
> > > 
> > > I don't know and it sounds strange to me as well.  I've tested a simlified
> > > patch which just moves the call to target_terminal_inferior right before
> > > the normal_stop call.  It works as good as my original patch, but I'm not
> > > sure if there's a specific situation which requires an early switch to
> > > the inferior.
> > 
> > I tend to suggest that we commit this simplified patch and see if
> > anybody screams.
> 
> This seems reasonable to me; if the patch tested OK on one platform
> with job control I don't think there are major terminal-handling
> gotchas it might trigger.

I don't know of any reason the inferior could possibly need to own the
terminal while it's not running.  If GDB needs it, it might as well
own it.



More information about the Gdb-patches mailing list