From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2915 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2008 20:39:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 2900 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Apr 2008 20:39:51 -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; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:39:29 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B469983DB; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:39:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D77798060; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:39:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JoPGw-000893-O2; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:39:26 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:09:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Doug Evans Cc: Paul Pluzhnikov , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] gdb could leave inferior running as a background process Message-ID: <20080422203926.GA31285@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Doug Evans , Paul Pluzhnikov , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <8ac60eac0804220741g6b830620h6f83c627fb00474b@mail.gmail.com> <20080422155548.GA13076@caradoc.them.org> <8ac60eac0804220946r689605e1pd4803c2aea3a9e07@mail.gmail.com> <8ac60eac0804221051p6ad56743g202a6f920d1c6315@mail.gmail.com> <20080422180459.GB20664@caradoc.them.org> <8ac60eac0804221240k4a238445vfba927e22aff93f0@mail.gmail.com> <20080422195515.GA28506@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) 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: 2008-04/txt/msg00489.txt.bz2 On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:36:01PM -0700, Doug Evans wrote: > It seems like there are multiple places where this can happen. E.g. > wait_for_inferior -> handle_inferior_event -> find_pc_partial_function > -> target_terminal_ours_for_output. But by then it's stopped, right? As long as something makes sure we give the terminal back after the warning it shouldn't be a problem. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery