Re: tracing broken if target doesn't do disconnected tracing

[Stan Shebs <stan@codesourcery.com>]

Pedro Alves wrote:
> On Thursday 08 April 2010 19:18:40, Stan Shebs wrote:
>   
>>>> 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.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> That's just begging for:
>>>
>>> The downside of your current design is that if you did want to detach
>>> and leave tracing running, you have to cancel the detach, do a "set
>>> disconnected-tracing on", 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.
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>   
>>>       
>> Um, I must be missing the joke, it looks like you cut-n-pasted verbatim?
>>     
>
> Your patch only asks the user whether she wants to leave tracing on or
> stop it when "set disconnected-tracing" was on.  If it was "off" (the
> user forgot to set it on, as it is off by default), you still have to
> cancel the detach and issue a "set disconnected-tracing on" command.
> The joke was that your words only justify one of the branches in your code,
> and can be used to justify my point in the other branch.  Compare the
> first sentences.  As is, your patch doesn't expose GDB's power to
> turn disconnected-tracing _on_, only _off_.  Following your mental model,
> a user would be much more thankful if gdb offered the ability to turn
> it on, on the spot.
>
>   

Ok, I'm with you now.  And you're right, they shouldn't be asymmetrical.

Stan