From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Deephanphongs To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] specify arguments to debugee from commandline (second try) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 02:39:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010420031059.A516@llamedos.org> References: <87vgoi58lr.fsf@creche.redhat.com> <20010330005457.A21793@llamedos.org> <20010330163603.A27435@llamedos.org> <20010403013600.B7630@llamedos.org> <87n19uirbk.fsf@creche.redhat.com> <200104060832.EAA17613@indy.delorie.com> <4.2.0.58.20010406182645.00c76e80@ics.u-strasbg.fr> <87y9td6gu4.fsf@creche.redhat.com> <3ADC6A5E.14113BD8@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-04/msg00198.html Thus spake Andrew Cagney (ac131313@cygnus.com): > Anyway, I think people have generally agreed that being to type: > $ foo bar boof woftam > $ gdb --??? !$ > > is preferable to: > > $ gdb --args=`something goes here` > > It is a case of user convenience winning over correctness. > > The next question is to do with the exact arg name. I've several > comments: > > o xterm uses -e program arguments > I've actually discovered a compatability problem with the way I was planning on (re)implementing this (using '--' as the "all following arguments go to inferior" switch). Someone could use '--' to escape a wierd core file: gdb progname -- -e (where -e is the core file.) I'm going to (re)implement the arg. patch with a -e like interface.. Mind you, -e is taken already (it's equivalent to --exec). I tend to favor --args, myself, so unless there are any objections... gdb progname --args Dave -- "*Veni, vici*...Vetinari." -- (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)