> On Jul 24, 2015, at 4:38 PM, Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> On 15-07-24 04:25 PM, Paul_Koning@Dell.com wrote:
>> But if you omit a shell, is the user of that shell blocked from using gdb?  That’s not a good failure mode.  It seems to me that omitting a non-shell is much more forgiving: all that happens is that you don’t get the friendly error message.
>> 
>> So that says the explicit list should be of non-shells.
>> 
>> 	paul
> 
> With Eli's suggestion, if SHELL is valid but gdb doesn't know about it (e.g.
> SHELL=/my/super/duper/shell), it will fall back to using /bin/sh.  So no,
> the user wouldn't be blocked.
> 
> 
Not unless the features in that unknown shell are needed for the application to function correctly.

	paul
�&���j�!z�޶���n:�ib�֫rn��r�