From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id YgWKJs6r+F8fNwAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 08 Jan 2021 14:00:30 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 93A271E590; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 14:00:30 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C42D71E590 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 14:00:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D28D38438A3; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 19:00:29 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7D28D38438A3 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1610132429; bh=htmNzM9r0mFOMavvl8O9CktFKTZpgoRV1WoxjC4KiOY=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=g+aEiES2LVb+fUXZ0P69Rms7T/9H3jwKHxypnFm9Wl6eGj294PRTz0dVdn1gIK8Y8 d4iMa0sXSRPnNRLpUjRS8/YzL9Po8107GcDULO2q7GXU4KbJN3rrGyVH0d4bIoUrcH IbIW+LPRbbxSeg4QEZlFDD6nzg2PciXzCUFb3z74= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CBAA38438A3 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 19:00:27 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 2CBAA38438A3 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 108J0JgU028982 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 8 Jan 2021 14:00:23 -0500 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 108J0JgU028982 Received: from [10.0.0.213] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0515E1E590; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 14:00:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] gdb: remove target_ops::commit_resume implementation in record-{btrace,full}.c To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20210108041734.3873826-1-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <20210108041734.3873826-3-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> Message-ID: <2d0a9fb8-b507-b7a2-92ab-e3452b1db04e@polymtl.ca> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 14:00:18 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Fri, 8 Jan 2021 19:00:19 +0000 X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Cc: Simon Marchi Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2021-01-08 10:43 a.m., Pedro Alves wrote: > On 08/01/21 04:17, Simon Marchi wrote: >> From: Simon Marchi >> >> The previous patch made the commit_resume implementations in the record >> targets unnecessary, as the remote target's commit_resume implementation >> won't commit-resume threads for which it didn't see a resume. This >> patch removes them. >> >> gdb/ChangeLog: >> >> * record-btrace.c (class record_btrace_target): >> (record_btrace_target::commit_resume): >> * record-full.c (class record_full_target): >> (record_full_target::commit_resume): > > Incomplete entry. Woops, fixed. It's "Remove." everywhere. > Otherwise LGTM. I like how these two patches result in clearer code. Nice. Ok, thanks. I'll keep reading the comments to see where the rest of the series is going, but in any case I think we can at least push patches 1 and 2 on their own then, if they are a good clean up on their own. Simon