From: Nicholas Duffek Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 02:26:37 +0000 (+0000) Subject: * infrun.c (handle_inferior_event): Call target_mourn_inferior X-Git-Url: https://git.libre-soc.org/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=c7e79b4bee6d93b98ae43da739ef73f9ac740fb5;p=binutils-gdb.git * infrun.c (handle_inferior_event): Call target_mourn_inferior instead of kill_target. --- diff --git a/gdb/ChangeLog b/gdb/ChangeLog index 27f42a1379a..deb5622cd8c 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 6bc32d803be..594523f1716 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 */