Re: info proc cmd

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 17:13:29 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
> 
> I thought at first you meant "info proc cmd" literally,

Actually, I did.  (I looked in the sources, and it mentions "cmd"
explicitly.)

> so I tried it, and it behaved just like info proc :-)

That's because cmdline_f, cwd_f, and exe_f are ON by default, so
mentioning them as part of "info proc" has no effect.

> > This bug is easy enough to fix, but I wonder whether some older
> > versions of Linux did use the one-string format, in which case fixing
> > this to assume a set of null-terminated arguments would break those
> > old systems.
> > 
> > Does anyone has further insight into the history of this?  Should I
> > just go ahead and fix the code?
> 
> I think you can go ahead and fix it; it's been NUL separated for as
> long as I can remember.

Will do.

Thanks for the feedback.