On Thursday 14 January 2010 16:37:42 Pedro Alves wrote:

> > Or do you refer to some other function?
> 
> -Usage: set inferior-tty /dev/pts/1"), NULL, NULL, &setlist, &showlist);
> +Usage: set inferior-tty /dev/pts/1"), 
> +                           notice_inferior_io_terminal_set, 
>                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> +                           show_inferior_io_terminal, 
>                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> +                           &setlist, &showlist);
>    add_com_alias ("tty", "set inferior-tty", class_alias, 0);
> 
> Better choices would be: set_inferior_tty_command/show_inferior_tty_command
> or set_inferior_tty/show_inferior_tty.

Done. Also done for args function.

> > -char *
> > +/* Set the arguments for the current inferior.  Ownership of
> > +   NEWARGS is not transferred.  */
> > +
> > +void
> >  set_inferior_args (char *newargs)
> >  {
> > -  char *saved_args = inferior_args;
> > -
> > -  inferior_args = newargs;
> > -  inferior_argc = 0;
> > -  inferior_argv = 0;
> > -
> > -  return saved_args;
> > +  xfree (current_inferior ()->args);
> 
> > +  current_inferior ()->args = xstrdup (newargs ? newargs : "");
> 
> This never leaves NULL args.  I guess it could.

Done so.

> > @@ -87,6 +88,10 @@ free_inferior (struct inferior *inf)
> >  {
> >    discard_all_inferior_continuations (inf);
> >    inferior_free_data (inf);
> > +  xfree (inf->args);
> 
> > +  xfree (inf->argv);
> 
> Hmm, I was going to say that this usually leaks argv[0..argc], and
> you should use freeargv, but, I now see that the only caller
> of set_inferior_args_vector is captured_main, and the
> argc,argv are presently a shallow copy of `main's arguments, so
> definitely not ok to free this as is.  This definitely needs a
> comment in the description of inferior->argv, expanded from
> the comment that was in inferior_argv.

I've added a comment.

- Volodya