From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5445 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2003 15:44:11 -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 5437 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2003 15:44:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 17 Feb 2003 15:44:11 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18kpKG-0001hz-00; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:45:08 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18knR5-0004Lg-00; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:44:03 -0500 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:44:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Kris Warkentin , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: patch to add QNX NTO i386 support Message-ID: <20030217154403.GA16683@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Kris Warkentin , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E4EBCF0.8070003@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00348.txt.bz2 On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 11:19:28PM +0100, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >>Oh! I was misunderstanding - I've never seen that particular syntax > >>for run before, and if you ask me, it should be killed ASAP. It's > >>terribly confusing to ambiguously use the first argument as a program. > >> > >>Let me guess, it's the documented way to use GDB with target qnx? > > > > > >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! -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer