This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Use multi-arch'd START_INFERIOR_TRAPS_EXPECTED on Alpha target
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Cc: thorpej at wasabisystems dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 16:04:00 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use multi-arch'd START_INFERIOR_TRAPS_EXPECTED on Alpha target
- References: <20020421181544.S1627@dr-evil.shagadelic.org> <3CC74887.2070401@cygnus.com>
On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 08:06:31PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >The following puts STARTUP_WITH_SHELL
>
> Hmm, HP merge. An intermediate version looked like:
>
> /* If STARTUP_WITH_SHELL is set, GDB's "run"
> ! * will attempts to start up the debugee under a shell.
> ! * This is in order for argument-expansion to occur. E.g.,
> ! * (gdb) run *
> ! * The "*" gets expanded by the shell into a list of files.
> ! * While this is a nice feature, it turns out to interact badly
> ! * with some of the catch-fork/catch-exec features we have added.
> ! * In particular, if the shell does any fork/exec's before
> ! * the exec of the target program, that can confuse GDB.
> ! * To disable this feature, set STARTUP_WITH_SHELL to 0.
> ! * To enable this feature, set STARTUP_WITH_SHELL to 1.
> ! * The catch-exec traps expected during start-up will
> ! * be 1 if target is not started up with a shell, 2 if it is.
> ! * - RT
> ! */
> #define STARTUP_WITH_SHELL 1
> - #define START_INFERIOR_TRAPS_EXPECTED (STARTUP_WITH_SHELL + 1)
>
> Does STARTUP_WITH_SHELL need to be multi-arched?
>
> I'm wondering if it would be better to make it a variable (``set
> startup-with-shell <boolean>''). Looking at its uses it appears that
> fork-child.c:startup_inferior() would still work (if it did previously).
Silly question.... are there any (supported? working?) uses for this
besides globbing and backtick interpolation? I think there aren't, and
I think it would simplify GDB to just have a function which called
glob() and invoked subshells for ``. It's a little tricky, but not
very. We'd lose access to things like shell-specific globbing tricks,
but I think that's a worthwhile price to pay.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer