[RFA] infcmd.c: Fix UI problem in attach_command
Tue Jun 29 06:39:00 GMT 2004
On Jun 28 17:13, Jim Blandy wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <firstname.lastname@example.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 <email@example.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.
I've just applied the simplified variation of my patch. I hope that's ok.
Cygwin Co-Project Leader
Red Hat, Inc.
More information about the Gdb-patches