From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23294 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2006 11:22:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 23286 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Jan 2006 11:22:38 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from gandalf.inter.net.il (HELO gandalf.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 11:22:36 +0000 Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (nitzan.inter.net.il [192.114.186.20]) by gandalf.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.1-GA) with ESMTP id HQI04338; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:22:32 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-83-130-209-17.inter.net.il [83.130.209.17]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id CNF98744 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:22:31 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 11:22:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20060116200238.GA11566@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:02:38 -0500) Subject: Re: RFC: target_create_inferior that does not call proceed Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20060116200238.GA11566@nevyn.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00276.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:02:38 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > This patch adjusts the to_create_inferior target method so that the inferior > is implicitly stopped at the end of it, instead of running. Daniel, could you please describe in some detail what happens now on Posix systems when to_create_inferior is called, and in particular as result of the call to `proceed'? AFAIK, the inferior is not actually running until you say "run", but your message seems to indicate otherwise? I need these details to decide whether your suggested change in go32-nat.c is the right thing to do. There's the prog_has_started flag there that go32_create_inferior is setting after the call to proceed. You suggest to remove the call to proceed, but the flag is still being set, and I need to make up my mind whether this could spell some trouble. If it does, we might need a new target op to handle that. I tried to understand what exactly does proceed do when called from to_create_inferior, but got lost in twisty little passages, all alike. I need help. > Another benefit of this is that I could finally implement a command I've > wanted for ages when debugging startup code: create the inferior but don't > run it, and give me my prompt back. That's not in this patch only because I > couldn't think of a name for it! I'd call it "start", but well... already > in use. Would anyone else find this useful? If so, would you care to > suggest a name? "create" or "create-inferior" sounds like a good name. We would need a docs patch if we add a new command, of course.