From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: DOS/Windows-specific code: inflow.c
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 13:10:00 -0000
Message-id: <20010509160846.B2897@redhat.com>
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> <1858-Tue08May2001211559+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-SW-Source: 2001-05/msg00194.html

On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 09:15:59PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> >    #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?

Judging by the ifdef, yes.  It seems like either part of the ifdef
uses inferior_thisrun_terminal.

cgf