Re: [RFC] Let "gcore" command accept a suffix argument

Hui Zhu
2009-12-17T02:45:32Z

OK. We can change "eval" to other cmd. What about "ceval"?

Hui

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 23:49, Stan Shebs <stan@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> Hui Zhu wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 03:20, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ">" == Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Agree with you.  Add " with variable make it oddness.
>>>>> What about change it to others, like:
>>>>> eval echo {++$a}
>>>>>        Or add " to simple string, like:
>>>>> eval echo ++$a".core"
>>>>> Or
>>>>> eval echo ++$a'.core'
>>>>>
>>>
>>> What do you think of the idea of making it printf-like?
>>>
>>
>> It's not bad.  But 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
>
>