Re: Build question

[Danny Backx <danny dot backx at scarlet dot be>]

I took the liberty of changing the order of some of the quotes below.

On Sat, 2009-09-12 at 16:03 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> And this is also working as expected?  What's the problem then?

No problem, a question :

> On Saturday 12 September 2009 15:49:21, Danny Backx wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 16:22 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > > On Friday 11 September 2009 15:42:53, Danny Backx wrote:
> > > > Question : it looks like breaking a gdb-gdbserver session always kills
> > > > the inferior. Or at least it does so on my target. Has this been subject
> > > > of research yet ? I would expect it to be possible to detach without
> > > > killing the inferior, much like you can when debugging a linux process
> > > > from a linux gdb.
> > > 
> > > What do you mean by breaking, and what do you mean by
> > > detaching?  Please be specific.
> > 
> > Good question :-) Turns out I had not analysed my question sufficiently
> > before sending this mail.
> > 
> > What I was looking for is for gdbserver (and the inferior) to linger
> > after disconnecting gdb-gdbserver, until I reconnect to it with maybe
> > another gdb session.
> > 
> > Maybe my question is a bit too funky.

I'll try to rephrase my question by means of a scenario :
1- start gdbserver (with inferior being debugged)
2- start gdb
3- connect gdb to gdbserver
4- do some debugging
5- notice that something's wrong
6- ?? tell gdbserver not to terminate when disconnected
7- tell gdb to disconnect from gdbserver
8- quit gdb
9- ... gdbserver+inferior are lingering (doing nothing until
   another gdb connects to it)
10- start another gdb
11- connect gdb to lingering gdbserver
12- continue debugging

What I am asking if this functionality is present, and whether it makes
sense to create it.

	Danny
-- 
Danny Backx ; danny.backx - at - scarlet.be ; http://danny.backx.info