From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25694 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2009 18:53:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 25685 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Nov 2009 18:53:51 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:53:46 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF5ED2BAB74; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:53:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id POf3WusnZI1d; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:53:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD9712BAB5F; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:53:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BC46FF5889; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:53:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:16:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Michael Snyder Cc: Hui Zhu , "gdb@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [RFC] Let "gcore" command accept a suffix argument Message-ID: <20091130185341.GI4034@adacore.com> References: <4B11DA3C.3000203@vmware.com> <20091130162246.GE4034@adacore.com> <4B141157.3070709@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B141157.3070709@vmware.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-11/txt/msg00224.txt.bz2 > I don't like the above suggestion, but I assume you are > talking about the original idea. Personally, I think that we should look at python. As far as I could tell, I was already able to do everything with the current python support, even if a little convoluted. We can also start working on a python layer for process record too. That would be my prefered approach. Otherwise, what do you think of Tom's suggestion (new "eval" command)? -- Joel