From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19480 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2004 17:09:49 -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 19453 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2004 17:09:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 28 Jun 2004 17:09:48 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1Bezdc-0003Cx-1t for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:09:48 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:09:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] infcmd.c: Fix UI problem in attach_command Message-ID: <20040628170947.GA12272@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20040626121121.GC8039@cygbert.vinschen.de> <9003-Sun27Jun2004201103+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <20040628111418.GA21679@cygbert.vinschen.de> <7137-Mon28Jun2004195856+0300-eliz@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7137-Mon28Jun2004195856+0300-eliz@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00643.txt.bz2 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 > > > > > > 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. -- Daniel Jacobowitz