From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30882 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2012 19:55:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 30872 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Feb 2012 19:55:18 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:54:57 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q19Jsqwm029247 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:54:53 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q19JsoTJ017096; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:54:52 -0500 Message-ID: <4F34248A.8070706@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:55:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120131 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yao Qi CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch 5/8] Doc for agent References: <4F1D55D7.7030506@codesourcery.com> <4F1D678B.2040705@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <4F1D678B.2040705@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: 2012-02/txt/msg00159.txt.bz2 On 01/23/2012 01:58 PM, Yao Qi wrote: > In this patch, we create a new chapter for agent, and put "Agent > Expression" under this chapter. One section "Control Agent" is added to > document command in patch 3/8, and the rest of them is from original > "Agent Expression". Some things, like the new target-side breakpoint conditions, and tracepoints, use agent expressions as well, without having an agent loaded in the inferior. Do you think it still makes sense to move the whole section considering that? I'm just worried about whether moving everything under the same umbrella is inducing confusion, since it seems that what you're calling an "agent", is really an in-process agent. I really don't know, and I'm just raising it, in case it wasn't considered. -- Pedro Alves