From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18614 invoked by alias); 9 Jan 2008 20:04:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 18601 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jan 2008 20:04:01 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:03:44 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A29AA2A96BE; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 15:03:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id vNn3OD7QMCdH; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 15:03:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24D682A95FB; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 15:03:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9C1BCE7ACB; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 12:03:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:04:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Pierre Muller , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] win32-nat.c: Improve handling of 'set shell on' Message-ID: <20080109200334.GH21281@adacore.com> References: <000001c8529e$a8088460$f8198d20$@u-strasbg.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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: 2008-01/txt/msg00216.txt.bz2 > > I ran the testsuite with a single line > > modified: > > -static int useshell = 0; /* use shell for subprocesses */ > > +static int useshell = 1; /* use shell for subprocesses */ > > Which made the use of shell to start the subprocess > > the default. > > Is this really appropriate for the native Windows port of GDB as well > as for Cygwin? If not, we should set this only conditionally, I > think. I understood that this part of the patch was NOT to be committed (from a // comment in the ChangeLog IIRC). After having explained how the patch was tested, I would have excluded that hunk from the patch, IMO. -- Joel