From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2318 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2010 20:26:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 2309 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jan 2010 20:26:32 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:26:25 +0000 Received: (qmail 12598 invoked from network); 13 Jan 2010 20:26:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caradoc.them.org) (dan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 13 Jan 2010 20:26:23 -0000 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:26:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Make -exec-run and -exec-until into 'real' MI commands Message-ID: <20100113202620.GB3955@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <201001131629.25873.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20100113200953.GA3955@caradoc.them.org> <201001132313.24694.vladimir@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201001132313.24694.vladimir@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-01/txt/msg00357.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:13:24PM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote: > I think that only "\"" won't be preserved. While "a b" will be present in reconstructed > string with quotes. Won't we have problems with Windows paths, for example? -exec-run 'c:\My Documents\test' "c:\My Documents\test" % exec /usr/bin/gdb 'c:\My Documents\test' "c:\My Documents\test" But the MI parser is going to turn that second \t into a tab if I'm not mistaken. This is a really hard transformation to reverse. > I believe the fact that no known frontends use args was raised the last time, > but you still wanted to assume they exist. Blech, I hate having to argue with myself. I suggest asking for a second opinion then. I don't think this quoting is good enough to be a good idea. I think we can get away without it for -exec-run. I don't know about -exec-until. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery