This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: info proc cmd
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- Cc: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 00:36:36 +0200
- Subject: Re: info proc cmd
- References: <umyp9i29x.fsf@gnu.org> <20080309211329.GB26503@caradoc.them.org>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot 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.