[patch, rfc] Re: target_find_description question

[Joel Brobecker]

> I've tried to strip down the wait_for_inferior and resume calls done by
> startup_inferior to the minimum that is actually needed for startup, and
> the result looks pretty straigtforward, and boils down to mostly using
> target_wait and target_resume directly.

Looks like a nice solution to the problem.

> - The treat_exec_as_sigtrap argument to handle_inferior_event is no longer
>   used and could be removed (not part of this patch)

I would love to see that parameter go. I wasn't entirely happy when
I introduced it.

-- 
Joel