From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-15168-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 30624 invoked by alias); 8 May 2002 18:35:46 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 30597 invoked from network); 8 May 2002 18:35:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 May 2002 18:35:44 -0000
Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50])
	by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA08985;
	Wed, 8 May 2002 11:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3CD96CE8.C7066D8A@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 11:35:00 -0000
From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com
CC: Michael Snyder <msnyder@cygnus.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com,
        rearnsha@arm.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] Disable "remote_rdp_can_run"
References: <200205081520.QAA17365@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00216.txt.bz2

Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> 
> >
> > Happened across this.  It's not right.
> >
> > With this in place, if you have not attached to your rdp target
> > (ie. by saying "target rdp"), but you instead just say "run",
> > gdb will attempt to use the rdp target, which has not at this
> > point been opened or initialized.  This is not the right way
> > to make a remote target accept the "run" command.
> >
> > 2002-05-02  Michael Snyder  <msnyder@redhat.com>
> >
> >       * remote-rdp.c (remote_rdp_can_run): Return false.  This is
> >       not a good work-around for making a remote target accept 'run'.
> >
> 
> I'm not sure I understand this.  Shouldn't remote_rdp_can_run return 1
> once the target has been attached?  If not, then I think the whole
> function should be killed (so that we pick up the default behaviour).

Actually, I agree with the second statement (it sound be killed).
If you want to have it return true once the target is attached, 
you need some way of detecting that state (perhaps a global).
I didn't bother to do that, because I don't like the idea.

This is the only remote target that tries to do this.
I'd be glad to yank it if you say the word...