From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25519 invoked by alias); 21 Dec 2009 20:15:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 25497 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Dec 2009 20:15:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:15:06 +0000 Received: from int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.18]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nBLKEEuC003107 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:14:15 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nBLKEDn8016098; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:14:13 -0500 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nBLKECOV023235; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:14:12 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id D0E7E3781B0; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:14:11 -0700 (MST) From: Tom Tromey To: Stan Shebs Cc: Hui Zhu , Joel Brobecker , Michael Snyder , gdb-patches ml Subject: Re: [RFC] Let "gcore" command accept a suffix argument References: <20091211100558.GA7125@adacore.com> <4B29018C.6060307@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:15:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4B29018C.6060307@codesourcery.com> (Stan Shebs's message of "Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:49:32 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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/msg00315.txt.bz2 >>>>> "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"? Tom