From: Jie Zhang <jie.zhang@analog.com>
To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
Cc: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>,
"gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>,
"toolchain-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org"
<toolchain-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] gdb: tests: set remotetimeout to gdb_load_timeout for remote targets
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:29:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E0B6078.8080301@analog.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110629162527.GC2407@adacore.com>
On 06/29/2011 12:25 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>> Rather than relying on the default remotetimeout value (which might be
>> too small for some slower devices), use the existing gdb_load_timeout
>> config option to set it.
>
> No one seems to be comfortable looking at this, so I took a look.
> I think the idea makes sense.
>
Thank you! I can only answer the following question and will leave
others to Mike.
>> + if [is_remote target] {
>> + set oldremotetimeout [get_remotetimeout]
>> + set_remotetimeout $loadtimeout
>> + }
>
> Is there a specific reason you already know about that made you
> change the remotetimeout only when the target is remote? If there is,
> I think it'd be nice to add a comment to that effect. If it's just
> because we don't expect the timeout to have any effect in the non-
> remote case, then I guess we can leave it like that. But I'm not
> to certain about that. I would consider the idea of making things
> simpler by just setting the timeout everytime, since this part of
> the code will always result in a "load" command being used.
>
I think it makes no sense to change remotetimeout for non-remote case so
I added that conditional. I would like to leave it like that since I
think the code looks clearer in this way. If we take it away, the code
is simpler, but someone looking at the code might wonder why set
remotetimeout for non-remote target.
Regards,
Jie
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-06-29 17:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-06-05 21:34 [PATCH] gdb: tests/monitor: " Mike Frysinger
2011-06-18 22:31 ` Mike Frysinger
2011-06-19 19:04 ` [PATCH v2] gdb: tests: " Mike Frysinger
2011-06-29 16:25 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-06-29 17:29 ` Jie Zhang [this message]
2011-06-30 8:59 ` Pedro Alves
2011-06-30 13:30 ` [toolchain-devel] " Mike Frysinger
2011-06-30 13:48 ` Pedro Alves
2011-06-29 23:25 ` [PATCH v3] " Mike Frysinger
2011-06-30 22:54 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-07-01 0:19 ` Mike Frysinger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4E0B6078.8080301@analog.com \
--to=jie.zhang@analog.com \
--cc=brobecker@adacore.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=toolchain-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org \
--cc=vapier@gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox