From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31855 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2010 14:07:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 31756 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Apr 2010 14:07:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:07:22 +0000 Received: (qmail 10163 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2010 14:07:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 7 Apr 2010 14:07:20 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Stan Shebs Subject: Re: tracing broken if target doesn't do disconnected tracing Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:07:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-20-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <201004050101.02067.pedro@codesourcery.com> <201004071240.36873.pedro@codesourcery.com> <4BBC8981.4050900@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <4BBC8981.4050900@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201004071507.18770.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: 2010-04/txt/msg00129.txt.bz2 On Wednesday 07 April 2010 14:32:49, Stan Shebs wrote: > Yeah, it's been troubling me too. User-settable variables are GDB's > traditional way of instructing GDB about user preferences, but the > canned method of phrase construction is too lame to express what is > really going on, which is "I prefer that targets to continue tracing > after disconnect, whether or not the current target can actually do so". > We could use something other than set/show, or invent a better method to > produce output - there are other set/shows for which the verbiage is > rather contorted. Hmm, can you expand on what lameness you're referring to exactly? Is it a technical limitation? These commands seem to fall in a close category: (gdb) apropos willingness set can-use-hw-watchpoints -- Set debugger's willingness to use watchpoint hardware set displaced-stepping -- Set debugger's willingness to use displaced stepping show can-use-hw-watchpoints -- Show debugger's willingness to use watchpoint hardware show displaced-stepping -- Show debugger's willingness to use displaced stepping Maybe we could follow suit similarly, or instead say something like: "Show whether GDB prefers to/that/whether ..." -- Pedro Alves