Re: [PATCH 1/3] Pass inferior to terminal_save_inferior

[Simon Marchi <simon dot marchi at polymtl dot ca>]

On 2018-10-22 16:54, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 10/16/2018 04:38 AM, Simon Marchi wrote:
> > Instead of relying on the current inferior, pass an inferior pointer 
> > to
> > the target implementing terminal_save_inferior.  There should be no
> > change in behavior.
>
> Your original patch 3/3 ended up not using the inferior pointer.  :-)
>
> I suppose that this doesn't hurt, like the equivalent target_detach
> change.

Well, the original 3/3 patch doesn't change the implementation of 
terminal_save_inferior, it changes the inferior_exit observer, so it's 
not really related to this change.

> > I added documentation to terminal_save_inferior, as I understand it
> > (maybe I understood it wrong, so please take a look).
>
> That looks good.  (please recall to update commit log.)
>
> > diff --git a/gdb/target.c b/gdb/target.c
> > index 2d98954b54ac..93d16b90f179 100644
> > --- a/gdb/target.c
> > +++ b/gdb/target.c
> > @@ -511,10 +511,7 @@ target_terminal_is_ours_kind 
> > (target_terminal_state desired_state)
> >    ALL_INFERIORS (inf)
> >      {
> >        if (inf->terminal_state == target_terminal_state::is_inferior)
> > -	{
> > -	  set_current_inferior (inf);
> > -	  current_top_target ()->terminal_save_inferior ();
> > -	}
> > +	current_top_target ()->terminal_save_inferior (inf);
> >      }
> With multi-target, current_top_target() will depend on
> the current inferior, so I'll need to put that
> set_current_inferior call back.

Can't you access the inferior's target stack directly instead of 
changing the current inferior?

Simon