Re: [RFC] PTRACE_ATTACH problem on new Linux kernels

[Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>]

On Feb 18,  3:47pm, Elena Zannoni wrote:

> 2003-02-18  Elena Zannoni  <ezannoni@redhat.com>
> 
> 	* infrun.c (stop_soon_quietly): Make it an enum, to better
> 	override the default behavior of handle_inferior_event.
> 	(clear_proceed_status): Update uses of stop_soon_quietly to
> 	reflect that it is now an enum.
> 	(start_remote): Ditto.
> 	(handle_inferior_event): Change logic a bit if stop_soon_quietly
> 	is set to handle the new kernel behavior for attach/sigstop.
> 	Update uses of stop_soon_quietly.
> 	* inferior.h (enum stop_kind): New enum.
> 	* infcmd.c (attach_command): Use STOP_QUIETLY_NO_SIGSTOP.
> 	Reset normal handle_inferior_event behavior, afterwards.
> 	* fork-child.c (startup_inferior): Update.
> 	* alpha-tdep.c (heuristic_proc_start): Update.
> 	* solib-svr4.c (svr4_solib_create_inferior_hook): Update.
> 	* solib-sunos.c (sunos_solib_create_inferior_hook): Update.
> 	* solib-osf.c (osf_solib_create_inferior_hook): Update.
> 	* solib-irix.c (irix_solib_create_inferior_hook): Update.
> 	* remote-vx.c (vx_create_inferior): Update.
> 	* mips-tdep.c (heuristic_proc_start): Update.

The solib portions of this patch are approved.

I do wonder though if the ``stop_soon_quietly'' variable ought to
be renamed.  When it was a boolean, the name made sense, now that
it's enum, things like

	if (stop_soon_quietly == NO_STOP_QUIETLY)

don't look quite right, whereas

	if (!stop_soon_quietly)

did.  (Maybe just drop the _quietly suffix?)

Kevin