From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16294 invoked by alias); 20 Nov 2008 02:10:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 16229 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Nov 2008 02:10:03 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com) (65.115.85.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:09:28 +0000 Received: from mailhost4.vmware.com (mailhost4.vmware.com [10.16.67.124]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5D1D40011; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:09:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.20.92.151] (promb-2s-dhcp151.eng.vmware.com [10.20.92.151]) by mailhost4.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC9D9C9A1C; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:09:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4924C6D5.5020903@vmware.com> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:04:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , teawater Subject: Re: [RFA] Resubmit process record and replay, 6/10 References: <4924C39B.7040101@vmware.com> <200811200202.26043.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200811200202.26043.pedro@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2008-11/txt/msg00531.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves wrote: > On Thursday 20 November 2008 01:55:39, Michael Snyder wrote: >> 1) Instead of "RECORD_IS_USED", how about "TARGET_IS_PROCESS_RECORD"? >> >> 2) Instead of "record_not_record_set", how about "record_skip_recording"? >> > > OOC, did you guys consider investigating replacing this a > bit further? > > Instead of querying if the target is XXXX, query for target has > property(ies) YYYY or is in state WWW. > > This is my knee-jerk reaction to making the core side know about a > specific target. > I do share your knee jerk reaction... Maybe I "let the cat out of the bag", because it appears that the intended meaning of the macro was "are we recording", but the implementation is "is this the process_record target".