From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18753 invoked by alias); 12 Aug 2002 14:47:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 18745 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2002 14:47:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Aug 2002 14:47:06 -0000 Received: from dsl093-061-169.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.61.169] helo=nevyn.them.org ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17eGTM-0007Dn-00; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:47:08 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17eGTe-0006dh-00; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:47:26 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 07:47:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: ``detach remote'' Message-ID: <20020812144726.GA25234@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3D519FB2.6090605@ges.redhat.com> <20020808132512.GA1840@nevyn.them.org> <3D540069.6010203@ges.redhat.com> <20020811030130.GA10208@nevyn.them.org> <3D567F7B.7080502@ges.redhat.com> <20020811163515.GA14609@nevyn.them.org> <3D56A6A1.7040904@ges.redhat.com> <20020811183448.GA19112@nevyn.them.org> <20020811205238.GA23632@nevyn.them.org> <3D57C800.4010809@ges.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D57C800.4010809@ges.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00259.txt.bz2 On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 10:36:48AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >This whole question put another way: > > Obviously, if you start something with "run", you want to end it with > >"kill". > > > > Obviously, if you start something with "attach", you want to end it > >with "detach". > > > >[These are not hard and fast, of course. You can detach a run process > >or kill an attached process. But you surely see what I mean - they're > >logical opposites.] > > True, > > There is a tradeoff between convenience and modal behavour. Need a user > survey (however, I suspect the attach/detach argument would win :-). Actually, I took a couple of surveys about this. Couldn't find terribly many people to poll, but the general idea of having the target resume on detach went over well. > > If you start something with "target", how do you end it? I propose > >"disconnect". > > The user doesn't start something with target, they ``connect'' using > target. That should more strongly suggest that ``disconnect'' > disconnects the connection :-) Pity the command is "target" instead of "connect", then :) It would make the pairings clearer. > The doco will end up needing a glossary. So true... What I think I'll do is submit a patch to add the "disconnect" command, and then commit a patch to make gdbserver detach or resume the target on a "D" (detach) packet. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer