From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10688 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2004 13:30:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10679 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2004 13:30:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Apr 2004 13:30:12 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.32 #1 (Debian)) id 1BGeHL-0004I6-Ri for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:30:11 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:20:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Question about args.exp test Message-ID: <20040422133011.GA16463@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20040421164040.GS1307@cygbert.vinschen.de> <20040421184448.GB5956@nevyn.them.org> <20040422073334.GC1486@cygbert.vinschen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040422073334.GC1486@cygbert.vinschen.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00131.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 09:33:34AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Apr 21 14:44, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 06:40:40PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > Why is args.exp expecting two apostrophes and who's supposed to add them? > > > The args testapplication apparently isn't. > > > > IIRC, the comments are wrong. The tests can not be fixed for the ARM > > simulator, though - I spent several days trying. Trace the path that > > argv takes through from the GDB prompt to the inferior main(), if you > > want some gruesome entertainment: > > - it is word split by GDB before invoking the sim > > - it is reconstructed into a string by the sim/RDI interface > > - it is word split again in either newlib or libgloss, in handwritten > > assembly > > > > The interface simply does not permit properly quoted arguments. > > Uh, that explains it. > > Thanks for the description, Should probably be xfail'd for arm-elf. I never did because, conceptually, someone could be testing arm-elf with a different target than the simulator and a differently protocol than RDI and a different library than newlib - but in practice I doubt anyone does, so if you want to stick a comment and some xfails in... -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer