* infrun.c (handle_inferior_event): Call target_mourn_inferior
instead of kill_target.
This commit is contained in:
parent
dd27201edf
commit
c7e79b4bee
@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
|
||||
2000-04-04 Nick Duffek <nsd@cygnus.com>
|
||||
|
||||
* infrun.c (handle_inferior_event): Call target_mourn_inferior
|
||||
instead of kill_target.
|
||||
|
||||
2000-04-04 Daniel Berlin <dan@cgsoftware.com>
|
||||
|
||||
* TODO: Make note of various C++ things i have planned for 5.1.
|
||||
|
12
gdb/infrun.c
12
gdb/infrun.c
@ -1555,12 +1555,12 @@ handle_inferior_event (struct execution_control_state *ecs)
|
||||
stop_signal = ecs->ws.value.sig;
|
||||
target_terminal_ours (); /* Must do this before mourn anyway */
|
||||
|
||||
/* This looks pretty bogus to me. Doesn't TARGET_WAITKIND_SIGNALLED
|
||||
mean it is already dead? This has been here since GDB 2.8, so
|
||||
perhaps it means rms didn't understand unix waitstatuses?
|
||||
For the moment I'm just kludging around this in remote.c
|
||||
rather than trying to change it here --kingdon, 5 Dec 1994. */
|
||||
target_kill (); /* kill mourns as well */
|
||||
/* Note: By definition of TARGET_WAITKIND_SIGNALLED, we shouldn't
|
||||
reach here unless the inferior is dead. However, for years
|
||||
target_kill() was called here, which hints that fatal signals aren't
|
||||
really fatal on some systems. If that's true, then some changes
|
||||
may be needed. */
|
||||
target_mourn_inferior ();
|
||||
|
||||
print_stop_reason (SIGNAL_EXITED, stop_signal);
|
||||
singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p = 0; /*SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP_P */
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user