From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
To: cgf@redhat.com
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: DOS/Windows-specific code: inflow.c
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 11:15:00 -0000
Message-id: <1858-Tue08May2001211559+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
References: <20010503211502.21716.qmail@web6401.mail.yahoo.com> <3AF1DAA0.3060702@cygnus.com> <200105071609.TAA24129@is.elta.co.il> <200105081145.OAA06214@is.elta.co.il> <20010508105251.A24160@redhat.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-05/msg00140.html

> Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 10:52:51 -0400
> From: Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com>
> 
> On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 02:45:43PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >
> >    * inflow.c:new_tty()
> >
> >    #if !defined(__GO32__) && !defined(_WIN32)
> >    #ifdef TIOCNOTTY
> >      /* Disconnect the child process from our controlling terminal.  On some
> >	 systems (SVR4 for example), this may cause a SIGTTOU, so temporarily
> >	 ignore SIGTTOU. */
> >      tty = open ("/dev/tty", O_RDWR);
> >      if (tty > 0)
> >	{
> >	  void (*osigttou) ();
> >
> >	  osigttou = (void (*)()) signal (SIGTTOU, SIG_IGN);
> >	  ioctl (tty, TIOCNOTTY, 0);
> >	  close (tty);
> >	  signal (SIGTTOU, osigttou);
> >	}
> >    #endif
> >
> >      /* Now open the specified new terminal.  */
> >
> >    #ifdef USE_O_NOCTTY
> >      tty = open (inferior_thisrun_terminal, O_RDWR | O_NOCTTY);
> >    #else
> >      tty = open (inferior_thisrun_terminal, O_RDWR);
> >    #endif
> >      if (tty == -1)
> >	{
> >	  print_sys_errmsg (inferior_thisrun_terminal, errno);
> >	  _exit (1);
> >	}
> >
> >This code assumes too many Posix features.  Should we define
> >NO_NEW_TTY?
> 
> Actually, I think something should define O_NOCTTY to 0.

Are you sure it would be enough?  Is inferior_thisrun_terminal defined
on all platforms?

> >    * inflow.c: pass_signal() [and many more functions that call kill()]
> >
> >    /* ARGSUSED */
> >    static void
> >    pass_signal (int signo)
> >    {
> >    #ifndef _WIN32
> >      kill (PIDGET (inferior_pid), SIGINT);
> >    #endif
> >    }
> >
> >I don't really understand why does the Windows build need to ifdef
> >away the calls to kill.  In any case, it sounds like providing a no-op
> >version in win32-nat.c would be a better idea.
> 
> I don't understand it either.  This should work fine on _WIN32.  Maybe
> we should just get rid of the #ifndef.

I'm all for it.