Re: [PATCH] Make sure GDB uses a valid shell when starting the inferior and to perform the "shell" command

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 14:36:38 -0700
> From: Matt Rice <ratmice@gmail.com>
> Cc: simon.marchi@ericsson.com, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, 	Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@redhat.com>, 	"gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
> 
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:42 PM,  <Paul_Koning@dell.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> 
> another case of this is shells which actively restrict the application to some
>  subset of available functionality

They should be included in the list of the shells we know about.