From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16881 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2003 16:45:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 16874 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2003 16:45:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (172.16.49.200) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 17 Feb 2003 16:45:57 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 929DC3CE5; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:45:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E5111C7.5080708@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 16:45:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021211 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Kris Warkentin , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: patch to add QNX NTO i386 support References: <01dd01c2d3aa$d4c1b1c0$0202040a@catdog> <20030213220751.GA15234@nevyn.them.org> <020c01c2d3ae$c7cb39b0$0202040a@catdog> <20030213222922.GA15783@nevyn.them.org> <000901c2d3ba$cb19aaf0$2a00a8c0@dash> <20030214000311.GA18154@nevyn.them.org> <003d01c2d3bd$b136bf30$2a00a8c0@dash> <20030214001316.GA18590@nevyn.them.org> <017c01c2d3c1$6196b210$2a00a8c0@dash> <3E4EBCF0.8070003@redhat.com> <20030217154403.GA16683@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00349.txt.bz2 > On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 11:19:28PM +0100, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> > >> >>Oh! I was misunderstanding - I've never seen that particular syntax >> >>for run before, and if you ask me, it should be killed ASAP. It's >> >>terribly confusing to ambiguously use the first argument as a program. >> >> >> >>Let me guess, it's the documented way to use GDB with target qnx? > >> > >> > >> >Bingo. And it's also the way our ide talks to gdb. If the exec filename >> >is >> >not set, gdb treats the first argument to run as the path to the file and >> >subsequent arguments as regular args. > >> >> I don't think that change would be accepted into GDB. It makes `run' >> just too modal :-/ > > > That was my first reaction too. But he's not describing a local change > to GDB - we already do this! Argh! Yes, arrrg! Bug! Andrew