Re: [MI non-stop 06/11, RFA/RFC] Report non-stop availability, and allow to enable everything with one command.

[Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>]

A Tuesday 05 August 2008 19:27:35, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> I can't follow all the possibilities being juggled in this
> conversation.  But why not just set non-stop in advance, regardless of
> the target, and then issue an error at run / target remote / wherever
> if non-stop is not available?

Yes, that's what I've been proposing/saying we must do.  Clearly, I
can't express myself that well.

> > We leaves some slack to add new modes like this, which would
> > combine (1) and (2):
> >
> > set prefered-execution-mode
> >  "all-stop"
> >     prefer all-stop, but if the target doesn't support it, fine.
> >  "non-stop"
> >     prefer non-stop, but if the target doesn't support it, fine.
> >  "force-all-stop"
> >     require all-stop, fail if the target refuses it.
> >  "force-non-stop"
> >     require all-stop, fail if the target refuses it.
>
> Please don't, the user should know what they get.

Ok, then we're back to what we have currently.  I only proposed
that, because Vladimir didn't like the exception/error that is
currenly thrown.  (In the unsubmited remote target; linux
doesn't do it yet).  I'll leave it to Vladimir to justify
not having an error and falling back to all-stop/non-stop, if he
still wants it.

-- 
Pedro Alves