This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Make sure GDB uses a valid shell when starting the inferior and to perform the "shell" command
- From: <Paul_Koning at Dell dot com>
- To: <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: <sergiodj at redhat dot com>, <simon dot marchi at ericsson dot com>, <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 20:25:53 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make sure GDB uses a valid shell when starting the inferior and to perform the "shell" command
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1437761993-18758-1-git-send-email-sergiodj at redhat dot com> <55B2850D dot 6030306 at ericsson dot com> <87k2tp5q3g dot fsf at redhat dot com> <838ua52wmp dot fsf at gnu dot org> <87fv4d5p8l dot fsf at redhat dot com> <837fpp2uz5 dot fsf at gnu dot org>
> On Jul 24, 2015, at 3:53 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> From: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@redhat.com>
>> Cc: simon.marchi@ericsson.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 15:28:58 -0400
>>
>> Another good thing about doing this type of check is that every known
>> and unknown shell will still work. When we explicitly check for certain
>> shell's as you suggest, it means that if we forget any of them its users
>> will be negatively impacted.
>
> I don't think there are so many shells out there that we run a real
> risk of forgetting them. And even if we do, there's plenty of time
> till the next release to hear from those who might be negatively
> impacted.
But if you omit a shell, is the user of that shell blocked from using gdb? Thatâs not a good failure mode. It seems to me that omitting a non-shell is much more forgiving: all that happens is that you donât get the friendly error message.
So that says the explicit list should be of non-shells.
paul