From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1085 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2008 18:00:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 956 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Nov 2008 18:00:23 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:59:48 +0000 Received: (qmail 16854 invoked from network); 24 Nov 2008 17:59:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 24 Nov 2008 17:59:38 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: [patch] Fix gdbserver vRun parsing again Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:11:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20081124173135.GA9091@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20081124173135.GA9091@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200811241759.37123.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2008-11/txt/msg00651.txt.bz2 On Monday 24 November 2008 17:31:35, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > As part of closing PR 2474, I took another look at Pedro's fix last > month to vRun. I approved it at the time but now I can see that he > and I were both a little confused about the documented semantics :-( > With Pedro's patch, "target extended-remote", "run one", "run two" > will never run the program with argv[1] == "two". We're always > supposed to use the new argv. "vRun;" means "old program, no args"; > "vRun;;XXXX" means "old program, decoded arg XXXX". > Oh, very sorry about that. I should have sticked to fixing the crash. :-( > This patch seems to do the right thing; Pedro, want to take a look at > this obviously tricky code before I change it? I tried it out, and it does do the right thing, and I also confirmed the original crash isn't reintroduced. Thanks. -- Pedro Alves