On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 11:19:28PM +0100, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>>Oh! I was misunderstanding - I've never seen that particular syntax
>>for run before, and if you ask me, it should be killed ASAP. It's
>>terribly confusing to ambiguously use the first argument as a program.
>>
>>Let me guess, it's the documented way to use GDB with target qnx?
>
>
>Bingo. And it's also the way our ide talks to gdb. If the exec filename
>is
>not set, gdb treats the first argument to run as the path to the file and
>subsequent arguments as regular args.
I don't think that change would be accepted into GDB. It makes `run'
just too modal :-/
That was my first reaction too. But he's not describing a local change
to GDB - we already do this! Argh!