From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6979 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2006 19:16:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 6971 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jan 2006 19:16:27 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:16:26 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1F1TeS-0006F6-9S; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:16:24 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:16:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Cc: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: RFC: target_create_inferior that does not call proceed Message-ID: <20060124191624.GA23949@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Eli Zaretskii References: <20060116200238.GA11566@nevyn.them.org> <20060121151345.GA600@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060121151345.GA600@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00363.txt.bz2 On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 10:13:46AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > Daniel, could you please describe in some detail what happens now on > > Posix systems when to_create_inferior is called, and in particular as > > result of the call to `proceed'? AFAIK, the inferior is not actually > > running until you say "run", but your message seems to indicate > > otherwise? > > > > I need these details to decide whether your suggested change in > > go32-nat.c is the right thing to do. > The only call site for target_create_inferior is at the bottom of > run_command_1. It first creates a new inferior, and then calls > proceed, which transitions the inferior from stopped to executing. > prog_has_started is only set when the program is created and cleared > when it is killed, so I think the patch is right - but I don't > understand all the DOS-specific bits of go32-nat.c. Hi Eli, Was this sufficient? Do you want to try the patch on DJGPP (since I failed to build GDB on my local DJGPP installation)? I'd like to check this patch in, and I believe it's correct, but I want to make sure I don't break go32-nat.c. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery