From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9937 invoked by alias); 22 May 2003 17:50:41 -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 9029 invoked from network); 22 May 2003 17:50:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.131) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 May 2003 17:50:18 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACFB62B2F; Thu, 22 May 2003 13:29:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3ECD0915.1060302@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 17:50:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/RFC] Problem with '!' escaping with zsh/bash/ksh References: <20030502233458.GP992@gnat.com> <1438-Sat03May2003113601+0300-eliz@elta.co.il> <20030503143251.GA1878@nevyn.them.org> <20030503165109.GT992@gnat.com> <20030503165915.GA16323@nevyn.them.org> <3EB6BBAF.5080504@redhat.com> <20030521234046.GH1027@gnat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00427.txt.bz2 > Andrew, > > On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 03:29:51PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> Joel, testcase? >> >> I was going to suggest gdb.base/args.exp but someone's already added that. >> Consider an addition to that existing test case pre-approved (and any >> other evil combinations you come up with). > > > Coming back to this message, I am not sure I understand what you were > suggesting, do you remember? As far as I can tell, args.exp verifies > that all arguments are correctly passed to the inferior. > > In our case, the '!' character was escaped in the executable name, but > not in the args (ie the args were left alone). So adding an extra test > for arguments containing '!' is fine, but not relevant to the issue at > hand. Ah! > At this point, I am considering the addition of a new test case, which > would basically: > > - compile args.c > - copy args to bang! > - gdb bang! > - run > > The problem is that this test should work fine on Unix machines > but I am guessing that this won't work so well on Windows boxes for > instance. If it's found to not work then it can be disabled on that system. > What do you think? Yep, sounds good. Andrew