From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10762 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2004 22:14:01 -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 10725 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2004 22:13:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 28 Jun 2004 22:13:58 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5SMDwe1014892 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:13:58 -0400 Received: from zenia.home.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5SMDu021687; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:13:57 -0400 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] infcmd.c: Fix UI problem in attach_command References: <20040626121121.GC8039@cygbert.vinschen.de> <9003-Sun27Jun2004201103+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <20040628111418.GA21679@cygbert.vinschen.de> <7137-Mon28Jun2004195856+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <20040628170947.GA12272@nevyn.them.org> From: Jim Blandy Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 22:14:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20040628170947.GA12272@nevyn.them.org> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00655.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz 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 > > > > > > > > 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.