This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: usability: exiting from GDB
John Pye wrote:
The ctrl-D behaviour is what I would prefer, certainly, and this would
be more shell-like. But I don't like the confirmation question "Exit
It *is* precisely shell like. Try this:
bash$ cat &
There are stopped jobs.
+ Stopped cat
The hook-quit thing does turn off the confirmation in the case of the
"q" command, but *does not* work for the ctrl-D exit method.
I guess the main thing is to get the ctrl-D functionality right.
Presuming that others agree that this change would be desirable?
I think everyone is agreed that the Ctrl-D behaviour is precisely the
same as that of bash and other shells, with the one exception that it
does not print a line break.
I find the ctrl-C behaviour unhelpful (ie suggesting I quit instead of
asking me if I'd like to go ahead and do it) but it's not important really.
The Ctrl-C behaviour is also only cosmetically different. It's hard to
see how to explain this any more clearly than has already been done, but
In both cases Ctrl-C interrupts the currently running command:
Program received signal SIGINT, Interrupt.
0xblahblah in ?? ()
In neither case does it quit the "shell".
When you Ctrl-C a continue command it prints a message explaining where
the inferior program has stopped.
When you Ctrl-C another GDB command it prints a message 'Quit' to tell
you that the command exited early, potentially. If no command was
running then the effect is *only* that you see this message. It is *not*
any sort of suggestion. If it did not print those four characters,
'Quit', the behaviour would be exactly the same as bash.
GDB could certainly improve it's Ctrl-C handling - there a many commands
that just can't be interrupted - and perhaps the aesthetics could also
be improved, but in principle it is exactly the same as that used by bash.
Hope that explains it for you