From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26122 invoked by alias); 24 Feb 2012 14:14:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 26108 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Feb 2012 14:14:14 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 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; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:13:59 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1OEDuEY009716 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:13:56 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1OEDswv008786; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:13:55 -0500 Message-ID: <4F479B22.3010002@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:15:00 -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 3/9] command set agent on and off. References: <1329447300-18841-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1329447300-18841-4-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <4F46ADB9.1010900@redhat.com> <4F478ADD.60307@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <4F478ADD.60307@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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/msg00562.txt.bz2 On 02/24/2012 01:04 PM, Yao Qi wrote: > On 02/24/2012 05:20 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >>>> + gdb_test_no_output "set agent on" >>>> >>>> set marker_bar_addr "" >>>> set marker_bar2_addr "" >> Hmm, is it really the right thing to do to require turning this >> on for static tracepoints? We didn't need it before, and there's >> not way for doing static tracepoints without the in-process agent, >> so it just looks like unnecessary extra trouble for the user. > > I agree. These changes in test case strace.exp are removed out of > the patch. Okay. -- Pedro Alves