From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 363333858412; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 15:06:06 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 363333858412 From: "m.weghorn at posteo dot de" To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug server/28392] gdb server no longer supports argument globbing and variable substitution Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 15:06:05 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb X-Bugzilla-Component: server X-Bugzilla-Version: HEAD X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: m.weghorn at posteo dot de X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gdb-prs@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-prs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 15:06:06 -0000 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D28392 --- Comment #7 from Michael Weghorn --- > I would probably lean towards option 1: >=20 > - GDB has worked this way for a while, and it would probably break the > workflow of more users than changing gdbserver > - Given the examples above, I think the GDB behavior is somewhat sane > - The "new" gdbserver behavior is now released in the wild, in gdbserver > 11.1 (IIUC). And it's what is in master today. We could always revert to > the old behavior as a "bug fix" in gdbserver 11.2, but that might end up > even more confusing. So where we are standing today, we can see the chan= ge > in gdbserver's behavior as being on purpose (to align gdbserver's behavior > with gdb's), but add --no-escape-args to provide an escape hatch. >=20 > There would be a third option, to revert gdbserver's behavior to be > different than gdb's, and add an --escape-args switch. But I don't really > like that, as that makes gdb and gdbserver behave differently, whereas we > try to make the two converge. Thanks a lot for you input. Unless I completely misunderstand something, I'd read that as being in favo= ur of what I tried to describe as option **2** in comment 5, though, right? (n= ot option 1) If so, I'll try to come up with patches to implement that. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=