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

[<Paul_Koning@Dell.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8", Size: 1074 bytes --]


> On Jul 24, 2015, at 3:53 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
>> From: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@redhat.com>
>> Cc: simon.marchi@ericsson.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 15:28:58 -0400
>> 
>> Another good thing about doing this type of check is that every known
>> and unknown shell will still work.  When we explicitly check for certain
>> shell's as you suggest, it means that if we forget any of them its users
>> will be negatively impacted.
> 
> I don't think there are so many shells out there that we run a real
> risk of forgetting them.  And even if we do, there's plenty of time
> till the next release to hear from those who might be negatively
> impacted.

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
\x16º&Öéj×!zÊÞ¶êç×n:ç¹b²Ö«r\x18\x1dn–­r\x17¬