From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9331 invoked by alias); 26 Jun 2003 14:49:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 9324 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2003 14:49:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.129.200.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Jun 2003 14:49:05 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6F4A2B5F; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:44:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3EFB06C1.7040706@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:49:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: fv@epitools.com Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Connect to already running target? References: <3EE63EEB.4136.18FFA12@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00489.txt.bz2 > Is it possible to connect to an already running remote target with > "target remote" and/or "target async"? > > As of GDB 5.0, the answer appears to be no, unless I've just not hit > on the right incantation. If the initial '?' packet gets a 'T' > response, of course GDB assumes the target is stopped. If it gets an > "O" response (which the docs seem to suggest should work), it treats > it as a fatal packet error and a failed connection. If it gets an > empty reply, it reports a packet error but then appears to be waiting > for the target to stop (or just a further reply). But trying to > interrupt the target with ctrl-C doesn't work - the ctrl-C packet is > apparently not sent. Same result if it gets *no* reply, but without > the packet error mesage. > > I searched the list archive, but all I came up with is a post from > Andrew dated August 2002 RE dropping "target cisco" support, where he > mentioned that the cisco target supported connecting to a running > target and this should be integrated into the standard remote > targets. Has that happened yet? Neither have happened. Andrew