From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5453 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2006 22:47:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 5445 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Feb 2006 22:47:58 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from gandalf.inter.net.il (HELO gandalf.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 05 Feb 2006 22:47:56 +0000 Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (nitzan.inter.net.il [192.114.186.20]) by gandalf.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.1-GA) with ESMTP id HUE02563; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 00:47:52 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-207-47.inter.net.il [80.230.207.47]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id CQD57278 (AUTH halo1); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 00:47:52 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 22:47:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20060205215659.GA7232@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Sun, 5 Feb 2006 16:56:59 -0500) Subject: Re: RFA: Support Windows extended error numbers in safe_strerror Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20060203233935.GA13238@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <20060204032730.GB9890@nevyn.them.org> <200602041435.k14EZ6NK016329@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060205001503.GB8728@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <20060205193440.GB4718@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <20060205202222.GB5574@nevyn.them.org> <20060205215036.GE4718@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <20060205215659.GA7232@nevyn.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-02/txt/msg00111.txt.bz2 > Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 16:56:59 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > Isn't the shell used to allow redirection and shell-like quoting from > > the gdb command-line? Lack of redirection, at least, is an occasional > > complaint about gdb-under-cygwin. > > That's right; and we certainly can't ditch that support. But what we > do today is pass the command line arguments directly to a shell, which > means all sorts of worrying about quoting, and also means that we get > Bourne shell behavior if the user has an appropriate $SHELL, or C shell > if they're using csh/tcsh, et cetera. I don't know if anyone takes > advantage of that as a feature, but it's sure confusing! I don't see why this is confusing at all. The point is that the user should type the command arguments as if she were typing at the shell's prompt, and feel exactly the same. So I don't see why we need to worry about quoting--just passing the args verbatim to the shell should do the trick. Or am I missing something?