From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Michael Snyder <msnyder@cygnus.com>
Cc: jtc@redback.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, cagney@redhat.com, kevinb@redhat.com, hunt@redhat.com, jsmith@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] Link remote target with svr4 solibs.
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 08:52:00 -0000
Message-id: <3AAE36DF.93561D43@cygnus.com>
References: <3AAD635C.DAE5D340@cygnus.com> <5m1ys2cxxt.fsf@jtc.redback.com> <3AAD6D7D.77A18268@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-03/msg00189.html

Michael Snyder wrote:

> > Doesn't this argue that this should reside somewhere above
> > remote_open()?
> 
> I'm open to suggestions.  The other place from which it is called
> is fork_inferior.  Remote targets do not fork.  Open is the best
> place I could think of.

Two thoughts.

remote_open_1()/remote_async_open_1() are slightly less painful than
remote_open().

Given the current arrangement, there isn't much choice.

Assuming ok with J.T. as well, can you add it to those functions along
with a FIXME.  Plenty of other examples can already be found.

	Andrew