From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30061 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2007 04:18:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 30049 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Sep 2007 04:18:54 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com (HELO fk-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.128.191) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 04:18:52 +0000 Received: by fk-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 26so914933fkx for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:18:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.54.3 with SMTP id c3mr2821465fga.1190434727818; Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:18:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.71.16 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:18:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 04:18:00 -0000 From: "Mike Frysinger" To: "Mike Frysinger" , "Mike Frysinger" , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] early abort if child spawning failed In-Reply-To: <20070922035842.GA10326@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200709212231.11507.vapier@gentoo.org> <20070922035842.GA10326@caradoc.them.org> 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: 2007-09/txt/msg00290.txt.bz2 On 9/21/07, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 10:31:11PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > if you use gdbserver to listen on a port and the specified program fails to > > launch properly, the server process will continue on to the accept() call and > > sit there forever ... you cant control+c the process as the signals are taken > > over which means you have to connect with gdb to force the server to re-check > > itself and then abort ... all in all, a pita for a simple typo. > > > > the attached patch checks the status field immediately after launch rather > > than falling down into the main loop and waiting for the remote debugger to > > connect for the status to get properly checked. > > Did you port this from an earlier version? yep > It shouldn't be necessary any more - Michael fixed this 2007-07-27. when i looked at the CVS HEAD version, the comment "we assume success" led me to believe that the situation was unchanged ... but looking at the diff, the patch i proposed is pretty much the same as the one Michael proposed so yeah, what i posted can just be dropped ... thanks -mike