From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18667 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2003 18:54:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 18660 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2003 18:54:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hub.ott.qnx.com) (209.226.137.76) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 17 Feb 2003 18:54:53 -0000 Received: from smtp.ott.qnx.com (smtp.ott.qnx.com [10.0.2.158]) by hub.ott.qnx.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA09417; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:43:24 -0500 Received: from catdog ([10.4.2.2]) by smtp.ott.qnx.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA14441; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:54:51 -0500 Message-ID: <064301c2d6b6$0c381870$0202040a@catdog> From: "Kris Warkentin" To: "Andrew Cagney" , "Daniel Jacobowitz" Cc: References: <01dd01c2d3aa$d4c1b1c0$0202040a@catdog> <20030213220751.GA15234@nevyn.them.org> <020c01c2d3ae$c7cb39b0$0202040a@catdog> <20030213222922.GA15783@nevyn.them.org> <000901c2d3ba$cb19aaf0$2a00a8c0@dash> <20030214000311.GA18154@nevyn.them.org> <003d01c2d3bd$b136bf30$2a00a8c0@dash> <20030214001316.GA18590@nevyn.them.org> <017c01c2d3c1$6196b210$2a00a8c0@dash> <3E4EBCF0.8070003@redhat.com> <20030217154403.GA16683@nevyn.them.org> <3E5111C7.5080708@redhat.com> Subject: Re: patch to add QNX NTO i386 support Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 18:54:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00358.txt.bz2 > >> >Bingo. And it's also the way our ide talks to gdb. If the exec filename > >> >is > >> >not set, gdb treats the first argument to run as the path to the file and > >> >subsequent arguments as regular args. > > > >> > >> I don't think that change would be accepted into GDB. It makes `run' > >> just too modal :-/ > > > > > > That was my first reaction too. But he's not describing a local change > > to GDB - we already do this! Argh! > > Yes, arrrg! Bug! Why arrrgh? I know it makes run a little context sensitive but I don't think anyone trips on it. The normal usage pattern of gdb precludes people having problems with it and it's very useful for us. I still haven't heard any suggestions of how we might accomplish what we do. cheers, Kris