Re: [RFA] infcmd.c: Fix UI problem in attach_command

[Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:

> On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 07:58:57PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:14:18 +0200
> > > From: Corinna Vinschen <vinschen@redhat.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Do you (or anyone else, like Elena) know why do we relinquish the
> > > > terminal to the inferior while loading the symbol table?  It sounds
> > > > like a strange thing to do at this point.
> > > 
> > > I don't know and it sounds strange to me as well.  I've tested a simlified
> > > patch which just moves the call to target_terminal_inferior right before
> > > the normal_stop call.  It works as good as my original patch, but I'm not
> > > sure if there's a specific situation which requires an early switch to
> > > the inferior.
> > 
> > I tend to suggest that we commit this simplified patch and see if
> > anybody screams.
> 
> This seems reasonable to me; if the patch tested OK on one platform
> with job control I don't think there are major terminal-handling
> gotchas it might trigger.

I don't know of any reason the inferior could possibly need to own the
terminal while it's not running.  If GDB needs it, it might as well
own it.