From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22496 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2009 18:44:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 22488 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Nov 2009 18:44:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com) (65.115.85.69) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:44:23 +0000 Received: from jupiter.vmware.com (mailhost5.vmware.com [10.16.68.131]) by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2F0413CBD; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:44:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.20.94.141] (msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com [10.20.94.141]) by jupiter.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A480FDC05D; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:44:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4B141157.3070709@vmware.com> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:06:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20090624) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: Hui Zhu , "gdb@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [RFC] Let "gcore" command accept a suffix argument References: <4B11DA3C.3000203@vmware.com> <20091130162246.GE4034@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20091130162246.GE4034@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00223.txt.bz2 Joel Brobecker wrote: >> I think if each command can support $v directly is better. >> >> For example: >> set $a=0 >> gcore $a >> Saved corefile 0 > > Am I the only one who really doesn't like this idea? The more I think > about it, the less I like it. It feels like putting a plug instead of > getting a new pair of tires. I'm surprised at my own reaction, since > it is not going to affect me all that much, and so I will let it go > if others like it (but it feels like a bandaid to me, and once it's in, > we won't be able to remove it). I don't like the above suggestion, but I assume you are talking about the original idea. So, knowing what problem we are trying to solve, do you have a picture of what "new tires" would look like?