gdb/145: Fix implementation of ``target xxx''.

[ac131313 at cygnus dot com]

>Number:         145
>Category:       gdb
>Synopsis:       Fix implementation of  ``target xxx''.
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       non-critical
>Priority:       low
>Responsible:    unassigned
>State:          open
>Class:          change-request
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Fri Jul 06 20:18:01 PDT 2001
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     ac131313@cygnus.com
>Release:        unknown-1.0
>Organization:
>Environment:

>Description:
Fix implementation of  ``target xxx''.

At present when the user specifies ``target xxxx'', the CLI maps that
directly onto a target open method.  It is then assumed that the
target open method should do all sorts of complicated things as this
is the only chance it has.  Check how the various remote targets
duplicate the target operations.  Check also how the various targets
behave differently for purely arbitrary reasons.

What should happen is that ``target xxxx'' should call a generic
``target'' function and that should then co-ordinate the opening of
``xxxx''.  This becomes especially important when you're trying to
open an asynchronous target that may need to perform background tasks
as part of the ``attach'' phase.

Unfortunately, due to limitations in the old/creaking command.h
interface, that isn't possible.  The function being called isn't told
of the ``xxx'' or any other context information.

Consequently a precursor to fixing ``target xxxx'' is to clean up the
CLI code so that it passes to the callback function (attatched to a
command) useful information such as the actual command and a context
for that command.  Other changes such as making ``struct command''
opaque may also help.

See also:
http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-06/msg00062.html

>How-To-Repeat:

>Fix:

>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted: