Hello, I make a new patch that eval command use "" to point out the simple command. If want add " in normal string. Use \" If we want add \ in normal string. Use \\ It can be use like: (gdb) eval "echo \""$a++"\"" "7"(gdb) eval "echo \""$a++"\"" "8"(gdb) eval "echo \""$a++"\"" "9"(gdb) eval "echo \""$a++"\"" "10"(gdb) eval "echo \""$a++"\"" "11"(gdb) eval "echo \""$a++"\"" "12"(gdb) eval "echo \""$a++"\"" "13"(gdb) eval "echo \""$a++"\"" Please help me review it. Best regards, Hui 2010-01-06 Hui Zhu * printcmd.c (ctype.h): New include. (eval_command): New function. (_initialize_printcmd): New command "eval". On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 22:42, Hui Zhu wrote: > Sorry for my poor English, did you mean that we can use "eval" for this command? > > Thanks, > Hui > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 08:18, Stan Shebs wrote: >> Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Stan" == Stan Shebs writes: >>>>>>>> >>> >>> Stan> BTW, Pedro nudges me out of my stupor and reminds me that the >>> Stan> soon-to-be-posted tracepoint action to evaluate without collecting >>> is >>> Stan> also called "eval" (it was originally proposed as "do" but that >>> Stan> ambiguates with "down", which seemed like a bad idea). >>> >>> Stan> The two versions are not necessarily mutually exclusive - the >>> Stan> downloading at the start of a trace run gives us a chance to filter >>> Stan> out eval's that don't make sense for the target agent - but if we go >>> Stan> too afield on syntax (the tracepoint version is simply a >>> Stan> comma-separated list of GDB expressions), then that's going to be >>> more >>> Stan> of a problem to reconcile. >>> >>> "eval" seems awfully generic for a command which is specific to >>> tracepoints. >>>  I'm not super familiar with tracepoints but a lot of the other commands >>> seem to start with "t".  Why not "teval"? >>> >> >> That's a good idea.  If we ever come up with a Grand Unified Semantics of >> actions and commands for which generic "eval" matches tracepoint "teval", we >> can simply alias the two. >> >> Stan >> >> >