From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6328 invoked by alias); 10 Apr 2007 12:07:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 6308 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Apr 2007 12:07:29 -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, 10 Apr 2007 13:07:26 +0100 Received: from return.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CC014B26D; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 07:07:25 -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 419F84B267; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 07:07:22 -0500 (CDT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HbF86-0005Ya-3v; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:07:22 -0400 Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:07:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Pedro Alves Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [Cygwin] Fix for: detaching crashes the inferior. Message-ID: <20070410120722.GC18255@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Pedro Alves , Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <4618D3F7.3040700@portugalmail.pt> <4619748C.5080007@portugalmail.pt> <46199F9C.1060803@portugalmail.pt> <4053daab0704100333j194f42b8xecc9a81a0fe479d6@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4053daab0704100333j194f42b8xecc9a81a0fe479d6@mail.gmail.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: 2007-04/txt/msg00080.txt.bz2 On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 11:33:15AM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > I think that gdb by design always removes the breakpoints from the > inferior when it stops, but it would be nice if someone would confirm > or unconfirm this. You are correct. I think we won't be able to keep doing that forever, but if we stop, it shouldn't become to_detach's responsibility to handle it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery