From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19471 invoked by alias); 12 Apr 2007 16:02:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 19462 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Apr 2007 16:02:25 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from return.false.org (HELO return.false.org) (66.207.162.98) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:02:15 +0100 Received: from return.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 214774B267 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:02:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (dsl093-172-095.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.172.95]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D5E34B262 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:02:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hc1kS-0003sn-Dx for gdb@sourceware.org; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:02:12 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:02:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [mingw32] stdin redirection Message-ID: <20070412160212.GA14712@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org References: <20070411134219.GA33609@adacore.com> <20070411144451.GA21140@caradoc.them.org> <20070411145104.GE58502@adacore.com> <20070411151234.GA22185@caradoc.them.org> <20070412145818.GG3886@adacore.com> <20070412151221.GA856@caradoc.them.org> <20070412155253.GH3886@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070412155253.GH3886@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-04/txt/msg00075.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 05:52:53PM +0200, Joel Brobecker wrote: > Daniel, > > thanks for your help, by the way. I was in the process of writing > a point-by-point reply to your message, but something occured to me. > Is it normal that we're using the "terminal" serial_ops object? > I wonder whether you might be thinking that we're using the "pipe" > one, whereas I suspect the latter is only used when using "target > remote |". No, that's normal - and you're right about when "pipe" is used. These two are independent cases, both of which rely on this code to operate correctly. So ignore my comment about "target remote |", but not the one about "target remote" - that's one of the cases where the behavior of gdb_select is interesting. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery