@@ modifiers

[trufae]

The current help message for @@? is the following:

[0x00000000]> @@?
| @@                   # foreach iterator command:
| x @@ sym.*          run 'x' over all flags matching 'sym.' in current flagspace
| x @@.file           run 'x' over the offsets specified in the file (one offset per line)
| x @@/x 9090         temporary set cmd.hit to run a command on each search result
| x @@=`pdf~call[0]`  run 'x' at every call offset of the current function
| x @@=off1 off2 ..   manual list of offsets
| x @@b               run 'x' on all basic blocks of current function (see afb)
| x @@c:cmd           the same as @@=`` without the backticks
| x @@dbt[abs]        run 'x' command on every backtrace address, bp or sp
| x @@f               run 'x' on all functions (see aflq)
| x @@f:write         run 'x' on all functions matching write in the name
| x @@i               run 'x' on all instructions of the current function (see pdr)
| x @@iS              run 'x' on all sections adjusting blocksize
| x @@k sdbquery      run 'x' on all offsets returned by that sdbquery
| x @@s:from to step  run 'x' on all offsets from, to incrementing by step
| x @@t               run 'x' on all threads (see dp)

I see some inconsistencies:

• Some modifiers have : while others don't.
• Some take or run a command which is redundant (@@is vs @@c:)
• The = modifier is confusing as its not alphabetic char like the rest maybe should be @@a:addr1 addr2 (or pick another letter)
• The @@k should be @@k:
• iterate over strings using r_str_glob() or using strstr ? right now we have a hack in 58b3676
• f can be confusing between flags and functions
• dbt[abs] wat

[alex-bender]

Can we change x @@f:write to x @@f~write since ~ is more like grep?

[trufae]

the problem with that is that ~affects the output of the command, so that breaks the syntax rules . f: works better imho and breaks nothing

[alex-bender]

it breaks nothing but adds inconsistency in how to grep in different contexts

[alex-bender]

Maybe that's possible to combine s for interchanging it from =, but from to step probably will not allow to

[trufae]

yes, the from/to/step thing is always a bit confusing to me, maybe worth discussing the syntax for it :) any proposal for this? maybe we can find a better syntax

[alex-bender]

how to use that x @@dbt[abs]?

[trufae]

thats not a valid syntax :? what do you mean?

[alex-bender]

I've copied that from the help message itself
it's just unclear to me how to use that

[trufae]

omg thats pretty confusing and wrong. thanks for spotting it, which command you used to show this help? im seeing it now with ?*~dbt

[alex-bender]

The current help message for @@? is the following:

i've took that from the first comment of this tread. so @@?