From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8539 invoked by alias); 22 Feb 2006 19:30:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 8439 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Feb 2006 19:30:06 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:30:03 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-83-130-205-93.inter.net.il [83.130.205.93]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id DPR76205 (AUTH halo1); Wed, 22 Feb 2006 21:29:10 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:50:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: gdb@sourceware.org CC: jimb@red-bean.com In-reply-to: <20060222180137.GA27535@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:01:37 -0500) Subject: Re: Quoting, backslashes, CLI and MI Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20060221213324.GA30729@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0602212223p1b8fda93meb9b12e5d187b3b6@mail.gmail.com> <20060222142953.GA20393@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0602220939i5189212ds8fb249747851cf72@mail.gmail.com> <20060222180137.GA27535@nevyn.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-02/txt/msg00305.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:01:37 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > Cc: gdb@sourceware.org > > Actually, there's two different possibilities here, and I think I > focused on the wrong one. > > 1. We want -exec-arguments to take MI-quoted individual arguments, > which are then passed as argv elements to the program. > > 2. We want -exec-arguments to take a single MI-quoted argument, > which is the value to set the argument string to, for the target > and/or shell to handle however they deem appropriate. I think we should take (2). We shouldn't second-guess or reinvent shell features. There's a good chance that the string is actually coming from a user who typed it, in which case it will be in the form we type at the shell's prompt. So it should go to the shell for interpretation. > Then there's the question of what to do with CLI "set args". People > use this today and it is passed literally to the program, without any > interpretation of quotes or escapes - if you want that to happen you > wait for the shell to do it. I don't think that we can really change > that - we can bump the interface version on MI, but we can't really > bump it on our CLI users' fingers :-) > > So CLI "set args" will need to continue being unescaped, one way or > another. Yes, and I Think this is The Right Thing to do, for the same reasons.