From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4159 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2009 02:45:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 4149 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Dec 2009 02:45:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-px0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-px0-f175.google.com) (209.85.216.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:45:25 +0000 Received: by pxi5 with SMTP id 5so1151508pxi.12 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:45:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.143.137.2 with SMTP id p2mr1266196wfn.136.1261017924124; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:45:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4B29018C.6060307@codesourcery.com> References: <20091211100558.GA7125@adacore.com> <4B29018C.6060307@codesourcery.com> From: Hui Zhu Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:45:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] Let "gcore" command accept a suffix argument To: Stan Shebs Cc: tromey@redhat.com, Joel Brobecker , Michael Snyder , gdb-patches ml Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-12/txt/msg00220.txt.bz2 OK. We can change "eval" to other cmd. What about "ceval"? Hui On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 23:49, Stan Shebs wrote: > Hui Zhu wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 03:20, Tom Tromey wrote: >> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ">" =3D=3D Hui Zhu writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Agree with you. =A0Add " with variable make it oddness. >>>>> What about change it to others, like: >>>>> eval echo {++$a} >>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Or add " to simple string, like: >>>>> eval echo ++$a".core" >>>>> Or >>>>> eval echo ++$a'.core' >>>>> >>> >>> What do you think of the idea of making it printf-like? >>> >> >> It's not bad. =A0But need a lot of extend work that the old patch don't >> have. >> And this command doesn't need convert a value from 1 type to another. >> So I want use the "" way. >> > > BTW, Pedro nudges me out of my stupor and reminds me that the > soon-to-be-posted tracepoint action to evaluate without collecting is also > called "eval" (it was originally proposed as "do" but that ambiguates with > "down", which seemed like a bad idea). > > The two versions are not necessarily mutually exclusive - the downloading= at > the start of a trace run gives us a chance to filter out eval's that don't > make sense for the target agent - but if we go too afield on syntax (the > tracepoint version is simply a comma-separated list of GDB expressions), > then that's going to be more of a problem to reconcile. > > Stan > >