[RFA] infcmd.c: Fix UI problem in attach_command
Mon Jun 28 22:14:00 GMT 2004
Daniel Jacobowitz <email@example.com> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > >
> > > > 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
More information about the Gdb-patches