This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC] Let "gcore" command accept a suffix argument
- From: Hui Zhu <teawater at gmail dot com>
- To: Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink dot net>
- Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>, Stan Shebs <stan at codesourcery dot com>, Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>, Michael Snyder <msnyder at vmware dot com>, gdb-patches ml <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 22:42:00 +0800
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Let "gcore" command accept a suffix argument
- References: <daef60380911300437o4c616eb2v5ad7bfe99bd3c5e9@mail.gmail.com> <m3tyvxz8kp.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <daef60380912120033r1ac03f1ao1f995381db879c82@mail.gmail.com> <m3zl5lscsu.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <daef60380912141756h1eab3217o4364857729fd799b@mail.gmail.com> <m3d42gniwn.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <daef60380912151957t312f3497l1e4022ce3dd8cbc4@mail.gmail.com> <4B29018C.6060307@codesourcery.com> <m31vioaxv0.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4B3BEDCC.9040103@earthlink.net>
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 <stanshebs@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Stan" == Stan Shebs <stan@codesourcery.com> 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
>
>