This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Disable "remote_rdp_can_run"
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, Michael Snyder <msnyder at cygnus dot com>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, rearnsha at arm dot com
- Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 20:10:26 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Disable "remote_rdp_can_run"
- Organization: ARM Ltd.
- Reply-to: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
> Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Happened across this. It's not right.
> > >
> > > With this in place, if you have not attached to your rdp target
> > > (ie. by saying "target rdp"), but you instead just say "run",
> > > gdb will attempt to use the rdp target, which has not at this
> > > point been opened or initialized. This is not the right way
> > > to make a remote target accept the "run" command.
> > >
> > > 2002-05-02 Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
> > >
> > > * remote-rdp.c (remote_rdp_can_run): Return false. This is
> > > not a good work-around for making a remote target accept 'run'.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand this. Shouldn't remote_rdp_can_run return 1
> > once the target has been attached? If not, then I think the whole
> > function should be killed (so that we pick up the default behaviour).
>
> Actually, I agree with the second statement (it sound be killed).
> If you want to have it return true once the target is attached,
> you need some way of detecting that state (perhaps a global).
> I didn't bother to do that, because I don't like the idea.
>
> This is the only remote target that tries to do this.
> I'd be glad to yank it if you say the word...
"The word"
R.