From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24737 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2009 22:29:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 24728 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Oct 2009 22:29:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:29:25 +0000 Received: (qmail 20344 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2009 22:29:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 22 Oct 2009 22:29:24 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Michael Snyder Subject: Re: [RFC] testing specifically for process record Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:29:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Hui Zhu References: <4ADD0105.6080000@vmware.com> <200910222117.49396.pedro@codesourcery.com> <4AE0BE00.1030304@vmware.com> In-Reply-To: <4AE0BE00.1030304@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200910222329.29069.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg00550.txt.bz2 On Thursday 22 October 2009 21:18:08, Michael Snyder wrote: > Pedro Alves wrote: > > On Thursday 22 October 2009 20:38:37, Michael Snyder wrote: > >> gdb_test "record" "" "Turn on process record" > >> # FIXME: command ought to acknowledge, so we can test if it succeeded. > > > > This can now be switched to gdb_test_multiple, assuming success > > iff the command was silent, and then followed by "info record" > > reporting that recording is in effect. Of course, all > > that done in a neat reusable function in lib/gdb.exp. Any > > takers? :-) > > > > Hmm, that's good... unfortunately "record" will succeed even > for a remote target, so it doesn't help me with the larger > problem of detecting remote vs. native. We want to avoid using > the process-record commands if we're remote (eg. Simics). My remark was directed at the FIXME quoted above only. -- Pedro Alves