From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26753 invoked by alias); 9 May 2002 18:45:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26745 invoked from network); 9 May 2002 18:44:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 May 2002 18:44:57 -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 LAA15344; Thu, 9 May 2002 11:44:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CDAC08F.7B58112C@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 11:45:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com CC: Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, rearnsha@arm.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Disable "remote_rdp_can_run" References: <200205081910.UAA08357@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00288.txt.bz2 Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > > > * 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... > > "The word" Aye aye, Cap'n! ;-) It's in.