From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com>
To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: RFC: Inferior command line arguments
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 12:07:00 -0000
Message-id: <20010930150751.A32444@redhat.com>
References: <87zo7gq7gb.fsf@creche.redhat.com> <2593-Fri28Sep2001103201+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <87u1xnh4ns.fsf@creche.redhat.com> <4331-Fri28Sep2001162207+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <8766a3gy0m.fsf@creche.redhat.com> <1858-Fri28Sep2001182535+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-SW-Source: 2001-09/msg00456.html

On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 06:25:35PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> I did this based on some readings I found via a google search.  I
>> really know very little about Windows.  Does this approach sound
>> reasonable?
>
>That is correct AFAIK, but there are complications: the case where the
>embedded quote is already preceded by a backslash, and the case where
>the argument that needs to be wrapped in quotes ends in a backslash.
>And running Cygwin applications needs yet another modification.  For
>the full story, see the function sys_spawnve on w32proc.c in the Emacs
>distribution.

I am not sure why cygwin would need more modifications.  We try to emulate
the standard arcane Windows quoting rules.

Could you elaborate?

cgf