From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6682 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2007 20:09:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 6673 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Mar 2007 20:09:14 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from return.false.org (HELO return.false.org) (66.207.162.98) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:09:10 +0100 Received: from return.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A641F4B26D; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:09:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (dsl093-172-095.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.172.95]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83A084B262; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:09:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HWHyc-0005Zh-Og; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:09:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 20:09:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Denis PILAT Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: TUI + gdbserver broken? Message-ID: <20070327200906.GO28164@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Denis PILAT , Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <45FDECB3.5000002@portugalmail.pt> <20070319021145.GA25872@caradoc.them.org> <45FEB31F.6040503@st.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45FEB31F.6040503@st.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14+cvs20070313 (2007-03-13) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-03/txt/msg00278.txt.bz2 On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 04:58:23PM +0100, Denis PILAT wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >Thanks for all your detective work on this. I'm sorry I apparently > >broke TUI so badly - I wish we had test coverage. > About TUI for Solaris, Fred and I have found where the problem comes from, but > we are not sure about the fix. > A "new" call to solib_add in solib-svr4.c has been added 2006-10-18 (yes 5 > months ago!). > This call leads to a problem about the owner of the target_terminal, it seems > that the TUI tries to write in the terminal without beein owner. > We tried just to add a call to "target_terminal_ours ()" at the beginning of > infcmd.c (post_create_inferior), that fixes the problem. > But I guess it's not the good place to do that. I don't know. Maybe? It should happen somewhere central, either central to TUI or central to GDB, so that we have the terminal before TUI ever attempts to refresh. post_create_inferior might be the right place. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery