From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18744 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2012 14:47:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 18725 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Oct 2012 14:46:59 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:45:24 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A240C2E050; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:45:23 -0400 (EDT) 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 T6e88nXr+VWM; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:45:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89D022E04C; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:45:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4938CC88A1; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:45:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:47:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Checked in: [RFA/commit/Windows] run program with space in path to exe. Message-ID: <20121024144521.GI3555@adacore.com> References: <1350692925-14181-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <83happzi44.fsf@gnu.org> <20121020162936.GC3050@adacore.com> <83a9vhdpth.fsf@gnu.org> <20121024134243.GH3555@adacore.com> <5087FC78.8010904@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5087FC78.8010904@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2012-10/txt/msg00442.txt.bz2 > Doesn't gdbserver need the same treatment? It doesn't, because it provides the "image name" in addition to the command line. Although, now that I look at the code, there might be a different bug. The program is going to start fine, but I am guessing that argc/argv is going to be miscomputed. I'll put it on my list... -- Joel