]> git.ipfire.org Git - thirdparty/binutils-gdb.git/commit
Fix up some target is-async vs can-async confusions
authorPedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:36:53 +0000 (11:36 +0000)
committerPedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:36:53 +0000 (11:36 +0000)
commit140e2c62fd7a46b4500dbd442964543587c0337b
treee84a0dda1b55d05584f9e6ebae8c67f961719544
parentdb689037a27fc6eb81b28ba99fc504c24fe919f1
Fix up some target is-async vs can-async confusions

In all these cases we're interested in whether the target is currently
async, with its event sources installed in the event loop, not whether
it can async if needed.  Also, I'm not seeing the point of the
target_async call from within linux_nat_wait.  That's normally done on
resume instead, which this target already does.

Tested on x86_64 Fedora 20, native and gdbserver.

gdb/
2015-02-17  Pedro Alves  <palves@redhat.com>

* linux-nat.c (linux_child_follow_fork, linux_nat_wait_1): Use
target_is_async_p instead of target_can_async.
(linux_nat_wait): Use target_is_async_p instead of
target_can_async.  Don't enable async here.
* remote.c (interrupt_query, remote_wait, putpkt_binary): Use
target_is_async_p instead of target_can_async.
gdb/ChangeLog
gdb/linux-nat.c
gdb/remote.c