This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
RE: [MI] argv/argc/args
- From: "Marc Khouzam" <marc dot khouzam at ericsson dot com>
- To: "Vladimir Prus" <vladimir at codesourcery dot com>, <gdb at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:21:07 -0400
- Subject: RE: [MI] argv/argc/args
Hi,
just to give input on DSF's use of these commands,
although that doesn't speak for any other frontend.
> -exec-next
> -exec-next-instruction
> -exec-step
> -exec-step-instruction
> -exec-continue
DSF does use a parameter on some of these but it is only an integer.
So, no problem here.
> The bad ones are:
>
> -exec-until
We use a parameter of format file:line
I guess it could be a problem if the file name had a space in it.
> -target-download
Not used yet. But any future use will require to have some special
code if we want to support older GDBs.
> -target-select
>
The parameters here are host:port or serialDevice, which I believe
will not contain spaces. Should be fine.
> -exec-run
No parameters used by DSF.
> -exec-return
>
No parameters used by DSF.
> So, we have 3 commands for which requiring the input to be
> quoted per MI rules
> will cause issues; and fixing those issues will require
> changing other parts of
> GDB to avoid parsing filenames, which is risky at this point.
> It appears, that
> instead of reverting my original patch, we can just path
> those 3 commands
> via CLI directly. Does the plan sound reasonable?
For DSF, it should mean no changes, so I like this solution.
> Ideally, we'd require
> all commands to use MI quoting, but this might break lots of
> things. You
> might recall that our non-stop delivery to you started to
> require quoting for
> -break-condition -- which you did not exactly like :-)
Yes, I remember :-)
Backwards compatibility is always a pain.