From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5680 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2010 23:56:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 5672 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Mar 2010 23:56:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 23:56:45 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05E7D2BABBA; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:56:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id DA1YdkeHDRkm; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:56:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D497B2BABB3; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:56:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D2E6EF58C1; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 16:56:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 23:56:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Stan Shebs Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't trace if all tracepoints disabled Message-ID: <20100326235640.GA4257@adacore.com> References: <4BAD1ED2.5090501@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BAD1ED2.5090501@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-03/txt/msg00921.txt.bz2 > This patch simply requires that there be at least one enabled > tracepoint before a trace run will start. While it's not > necessarily wrong to have a tracepoint-less trace run, this could > save a user or two from massive puzzlement as to why there are no > trace frames accumulating. :-) While this seems uncontroversial, > I'm going to hold off commit to allow comments. It seems to me that, from a user's perspective, a trace run without tracepoints would be pointless, right? So, if a user request a trace run without any tracepoint, he most likely made a mistake somewhere (wrong command or forgot to create the tracepoints). So I agree with your suggestion (FWIW). -- Joel