From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14990 invoked by alias); 21 Sep 2007 22:55:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 14982 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Sep 2007 22:55:30 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:55:29 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E048982AD; Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:55:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E24698100; Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:55:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IYrPD-0007a8-1k; Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:55:27 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:55:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Denis PILAT Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] usage of environment variable from the command line Message-ID: <20070921225527.GA28500@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Denis PILAT , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <46F13F2A.8010507@st.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46F13F2A.8010507@st.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-09/txt/msg00284.txt.bz2 On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 05:24:26PM +0200, Denis PILAT wrote: > Hi, > > I have a patch that allows to use environment variable when typing commands. > Environment variable must be surrounded by "%%" string. > (Ex: "file %%REPOSITORY%%/obj/a.out" would be supported.) > > > Is there any chance that such a patch could be accepted ? > I've read from the gdb mailing list that I'm not the only one who wants to > handle environment variable from the command line. I think it would probably be useful to allow if we can find a way that won't break something else. I think that syntax is really ugly :-( Before we go ahead with this can anyone think of a better one that won't conflict with source language expressions? Another problem is escaping. Right now, you're supposed to be able to give either quoted strings or raw text to most commands (it varies, I posted a summary a while back). Front ends won't know how to escape the string if you have e.g. %% in your $PWD or want to print a string containing %%. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery