From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16987 invoked by alias); 29 Jun 2004 06:39:39 -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 16970 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2004 06:39:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 29 Jun 2004 06:39:38 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5T6dbe1006034 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 02:39:38 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5T6dbw12494 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 02:39:37 -0400 Received: from cygbert.vinschen.de (vpn50-16.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.16]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5T6dZP22500 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 23:39:36 -0700 Received: by cygbert.vinschen.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id C1886582E2; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:39:33 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 06:39:00 -0000 From: Corinna Vinschen To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] infcmd.c: Fix UI problem in attach_command Message-ID: <20040629063933.GK19325@cygbert.vinschen.de> Reply-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com 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> <20040628170947.GA12272@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00663.txt.bz2 On Jun 28 17:13, Jim Blandy wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz 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 > > > > > > > > > > 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. Thanks, folks. I've just applied the simplified variation of my patch. I hope that's ok. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Co-Project Leader Red Hat, Inc.