From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2890 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2010 22:04:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 2699 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Apr 2010 22:04:51 -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 22:04:46 +0000 Received: (qmail 15123 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2010 22:04:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO macbook-2.local) (stan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 7 Apr 2010 22:04:44 -0000 Message-ID: <4BBD0176.6060409@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 22:04:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Stan Shebs Subject: Re: tracing broken if target doesn't do disconnected tracing References: <201004050101.02067.pedro@codesourcery.com> <4BBBE114.3030305@codesourcery.com> <201004071240.36873.pedro@codesourcery.com> <201004071435.39891.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <201004071435.39891.pedro@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00165.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves wrote: > I suggest we change that to simply: > > /* If running interactively, warn the user a trace run is ongoing. > She may want to cancel detaching instead. */ > if (current_trace_status ()->running && from_tty) > { > if (current_trace_status ()->disconnected_tracing) > { > if (!query (_("Trace is running and will continue after detach; detach anyway? "))) > error (_("Not confirmed.")); > } > else > { > if (!query (_("Trace is running but will stop on detach; detach anyway? "))) > error (_("Not confirmed.")); > } > } > > - simpler, more coherent, less explaining, less confusing. > The downside of this design is that if you did want to shut tracing down, you have to cancel the detach, do a tstop, then redo the detach. It's not crucial perhaps, but it seems a bit pedantic for GDB to have the power to choose whether to keep the trace running, but not to exercise it, and to insist that you have cancel and type the command yourself. Perhaps the crux of the confusion is that this is really a three-way choice - trace/detach, tstop/detach, cancel - and a pair of yes/no questions is not a good way to model it. Stan