From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28717 invoked by alias); 21 Jul 2007 04:29:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 28708 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Jul 2007 04:29:08 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Jul 2007 04:29:06 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0CB298212; Sat, 21 Jul 2007 04:29:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7244E9817B; Sat, 21 Jul 2007 04:29:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IC6aV-0002Gb-8n; Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:29:03 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:02:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Kevin Buettner Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] lib/mi-support.exp: kill SID inferior prior to reconnecting Message-ID: <20070721042903.GA8699@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Kevin Buettner , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20070720141802.58d24ee5@ironwood.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070720141802.58d24ee5@ironwood.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) 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: 2007-07/txt/msg00244.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 02:18:02PM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote: > Below is another SID related patch. This patch was motivated by > gdb.mi/mi-var-cp.exp which uses the inline test support in > lib/mi-support.exp. The first inline test runs okay, but subsequent > tests run into trouble when attempting to reconnect to SID using the > same port as the existing connection. This patch simply kills (or > attempts to kill) the inferior first to avoid that problem. > > Comments? I've had to do similar things for gdbserver, so I think this is probably right. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery