Re: RFC: ``detach remote''

Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-08-12T14:47:08Z

On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 10:36:48AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
> >This whole question put another way:
> > Obviously, if you start something with "run", you want to end it with
> >"kill".
> >
> > Obviously, if you start something with "attach", you want to end it
> >with "detach".
> >
> >[These are not hard and fast, of course. You can detach a run process
> >or kill an attached process. But you surely see what I mean - they're
> >logical opposites.]
>
> True,
>
> There is a tradeoff between convenience and modal behavour. Need a user
> survey (however, I suspect the attach/detach argument would win :-).

Actually, I took a couple of surveys about this. Couldn't find
terribly many people to poll, but the general idea of having the target
resume on detach went over well.

> > If you start something with "target", how do you end it? I propose
> >"disconnect".
>
> The user doesn't start something with target, they ``connect'' using
> target. That should more strongly suggest that ``disconnect''
> disconnects the connection :-)

Pity the command is "target" instead of "connect", then :) It would
make the pairings clearer.

> The doco will end up needing a glossary.

So true...

What I think I'll do is submit a patch to add the "disconnect" command,
and then commit a patch to make gdbserver detach or resume the target
on a "D" (detach) packet.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer