[Bug gdb/11403] Failed to set controlling terminal

[Bug gdb/11403] Failed to set controlling terminal

[sergiodj at redhat dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11403

Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj at redhat dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |sergiodj at redhat dot com

--- Comment #2 from Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj at redhat dot com> ---
Hi Egor and Jan, what is the status of this bug?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug gdb/11403] Failed to set controlling terminal

[nikolay.koldunov at oracle dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11403

nikolay.koldunov at oracle dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |nikolay.koldunov at oracle dot com

--- Comment #3 from nikolay.koldunov at oracle dot com ---
This is still valid at least on Solaris 11.2 and MacOS X 10.10 with GDB 7.7
Input is not redirected to a process being debugged but output from a process
appears in a terminal specified

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug gdb/11403] Failed to set controlling terminal

[jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com]

------- Additional Comments From jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com  2010-08-15 20:02 -------
This issue started with:
[RFA] Fix GDB's handling of the inferior controlling terminal.
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-03/msg00103.html
(as reported by Alan Matsuoka)

The changed fixed other problems described there.

Either you should ignore the warning as it has the same functionality as gdb-6.x
before the change above.  For example signals do not work in that TTY, though. 
If you want to benefit from the fully dedicated TTY to the inferior process you
should run first the helper pasted below.

(One can discuss whether to call TIOCSCTTY with 0 (current) or 1.  IMO the
current value is right, 1 would not make it much easier and it would just
require root privileges plus make it whole less clear.)

I would suggest for GDB to make some notice to such a helper in the warning.
Thanks for the bugreport, is it OK this way?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/* tty;exec disowntty  */
#include <sys/ioctl.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <limits.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <signal.h>
static void
end (const char *msg)
{
  perror (msg);
  for (;;)
    pause ();
}
int
main (void)
{
  void (*orig) (int signo);
  setbuf (stdout, NULL);
  orig = signal (SIGHUP, SIG_IGN);
  if (orig != SIG_DFL)
    end ("signal (SIGHUP)");
  /* Verify we are the sole owner of the tty.  */
  if (ioctl (STDIN_FILENO, TIOCSCTTY, 0) != 0)
    end ("TIOCSCTTY");
  /* Disown the tty.  */
  if (ioctl (STDIN_FILENO, TIOCNOTTY) != 0)
    end ("TIOCNOTTY");
  end ("OK, disowned");
  return 1;
}


-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jan dot kratochvil at redhat
                   |                            |dot com
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |WAITING
   Target Milestone|7.1                         |7.2
            Version|7.0                         |7.1


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11403

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.