From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27711 invoked by alias); 9 Nov 2009 18:04:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 27703 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Nov 2009 18:04:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:04:42 +0000 Received: from int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nA9I3wrw013682; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:03:58 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nA9I3vpk020770; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:03:57 -0500 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nA9I3uT5010353; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:03:56 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 1215B37815E; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:03:56 -0700 (MST) From: Tom Tromey To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Jon Beniston , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't split executable paths with spaces in into multiple arguments References: <003c01ca5d52$1715da50$45418ef0$@com> <20091104161727.GH4557@adacore.com> <20091109174623.GR4557@adacore.com> Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:04:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20091109174623.GR4557@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:46:23 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-11/txt/msg00154.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker writes: >> It seems to me that it would not be significantly harder for the code to >> do the correct thing in all cases. Joel> To be honest, I didn't even think about it, mostly because I thought Joel> that the issue would be so rare that it was possibly just retorical. Joel> So I felt that I shouldn't insist that we do the right thing in all Joel> cases. Too lax? Ordinarily my view is "forward biased": an improvement is an improvement, and requiring perfection tends to raise the patch submission bar too high. In this particular case, though, I would probably have pushed back a bit, first because the patch is already fixing a previous "can't happen" assumption, and second because the correct code is really just 4 or 5 lines. (I thought for sure we would already have the quoting code lying around, but I grepped a little and couldn't find it. It is odd that we have buildargv to split the argv but nothing to quote it.) Tom