From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5821 invoked by alias); 18 Dec 2012 08:35:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 5551 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Dec 2012 08:35:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:35:21 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qBI8ZGDS012856 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 18 Dec 2012 03:35:16 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-39.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.39]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qBI8Z9a7016143 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 18 Dec 2012 03:35:12 -0500 Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:35:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: "Metzger, Markus T" Cc: "palves@redhat.com" , "tromey@redhat.com" , "kettenis@gnu.org" , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , "markus.t.metzger@gmail.com" Subject: Re: [patch v6 02/12] cli, btrace: add btrace cli Message-ID: <20121218083509.GB8054@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <1355760101-26237-1-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <1355760101-26237-3-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <20121217183214.GA14232@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2012-12/txt/msg00620.txt.bz2 On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:36:47 +0100, Metzger, Markus T wrote: > I didn't use gdb_assert since this is not checking gdb's internal state. Gdb > would still function correctly even if we saw such unexpected trace. Sorry, I read a later patch where the data is read from XML from gdbserver so I agree it should not be gdb_assert. > > No need for a repost wrt the changes above. > > Does that mean you approve the patch? Not yet, going to post yet a [patch 00/12] reply. Thanks, Jan