From fcc00c34e763f4184b120562705effaeb9b0d2a8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: nsd Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 02:26:37 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] * infrun.c (handle_inferior_event): Call target_mourn_inferior instead of kill_target. --- gdb/ChangeLog | 5 +++++ gdb/infrun.c | 12 ++++++------ 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/gdb/ChangeLog b/gdb/ChangeLog index 27f42a1379..deb5622cd8 100644 --- a/gdb/ChangeLog +++ b/gdb/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@ +2000-04-04 Nick Duffek + + * infrun.c (handle_inferior_event): Call target_mourn_inferior + instead of kill_target. + 2000-04-04 Daniel Berlin * TODO: Make note of various C++ things i have planned for 5.1. diff --git a/gdb/infrun.c b/gdb/infrun.c index 6bc32d803b..594523f171 100644 --- a/gdb/infrun.c +++ b/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 */ -- 2.11.0