From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@zwingli.cygnus.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: RFA: compare strings carefully in gdbarch.sh
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 09:11:00 -0000
Message-id: <npk82o1d6i.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com>
References: <20010606181831.CDD365E9CB@zwingli.cygnus.com> <3B1F7C72.2010203@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-06/msg00130.html

Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:
> > Isn't that amazing?  If it's the only thing there, then `[' knows it's
> > not a unary operator, and apparently applies the "true if string not
> > null" interpretation to it.  But if it's followed by something, then
> > it assumes it's an operator.
> 
> $ [ -1 ] && echo "hi"
> hi
> $ [ -1 -a -2 ] && echo "hi"
> hi
> 
> It's more of a compatibility issue.  The script works on Solaris and
> *BSD.

Yes, I don't mean to assert that GNU test is the One True Test.  But I
think it's worth supporting, yes?


> > 2001-06-06  Jim Blandy  <jimb@redhat.com>
> > 
> > * gdbarch.sh: Make sure that '[' doesn't interpret interesting
> > 	variable values as operators.
> 
> Yes, ok. Doug Evans posted a similar patch but that one had massive 
> offsets so I dropped it.

Thanks, I'll apply it.