From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1668 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2010 19:44:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 1657 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Apr 2010 19:44:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 19:44:08 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFBCB2BACC4; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:44:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id tklgtv2MbynH; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:44:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 970EC2BABA8; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:44:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E848EF5895; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:44:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 19:44:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: John Cortell Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: sending CTRL-C to Cygwin gdb 6.8 has no effect Message-ID: <20100423194404.GP13204@adacore.com> References: <201004231941.o3NJfbWR021914@az33smr01.freescale.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201004231941.o3NJfbWR021914@az33smr01.freescale.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-04/txt/msg00114.txt.bz2 > In CDT, we've had to resort to sending a CTRL-C to the inferior > process of a Cygwin gdb session because gdb itself doesn't react to > the CTRL-C. Is this a known issue? Is it addressed in HEAD? This should have been fixed in recent versions of GDB. I don't remember which version first started having the fix, but it's a safe bet that 7.1 will. > Naturally, that approach isn't an option when debugging a remote > program. But when you are doing remote debugging, the transport protocol used between GDB and the target should provide a way to send that interrupt. For instance, when using the remote protocol: http://www.sourceware.org/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdb/Interrupts.html#Interrupts -- Joel