Re: [PATCH] gdb: add callback defines for new ARGV handling

[Doug Evans <dje@google.com>]

[+ newlib]

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> For callback.h, IWBN to add some documentation regarding why things
>> are the way they are.  E.g. if argn is preferred over argv, why?
>
> these things were created long before i had even heard of either project, so i
> can only speculate on their history.

Understood.

> i would guess that argv/argvlen made it
> more difficult to do what most people actually want -- pass argc/argv to the
> main function.  and so argc/argn were born.

I wouldn't mind hearing more, sounds pretty fishy.
Though I understand it was before your time.

I found these in the newlib archives:
An inquiry into argv,argvlen:
http://sourceware.org/ml/newlib/2006/msg00859.html
Submission of argc,argn,argnlen:
http://sourceware.org/ml/newlib/2006/msg00883.html

I couldn't find any pushback when argn,argnlen were submitted.

> all i really know is that argc/argn/argnlen are labeled as "the new approach"
> in a few places, and as such, it is what the Blackfin port supports.

Blech.
I'm hesitant to approve the patch, but since this is sim,newlib I
don't want to hold things up much just because of this.

> it also seems like the syscall handling intended to handle argv at some point,
> but someone didnt get around to implementing it.  so i could flesh that out
> too so that i could take the Blackfin argn/argc code and move it to
> common/syscall.c in the sim.

newlib: does anyone know the history of SYS_argc,argn,argnlen vs
SYS_argv,argvlen beyond the above mentioned emails?