From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29141 invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2012 16:17:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 29123 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Aug 2012 16:17:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:17:06 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1T4a5g-0003sr-3c from Yao_Qi@mentor.com ; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:17:04 -0700 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-02.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.96.206]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:17:03 -0700 Received: from qiyao.dyndns.org (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-02.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.96.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:17:02 -0700 Message-ID: <50365778.7030408@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:17:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Tromey CC: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Set $trace_frame and $tracepoint on disconnect References: <1345550573-24752-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <87zk5lpq5e.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87zk5lpq5e.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2012-08/txt/msg00666.txt.bz2 On 08/23/2012 11:46 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > Looks good to me. > I read your patch and traced through the various tracepoint.c functions. > Thanks for the review. Committed. > Just a side note on tracepoint.c - it seems bad to have functions named > "set_traceframe_num" and "set_traceframe_number" with different effects. > A bit of reading showed me what was going on, but the names seem > needlessly confusing. Yes, here are some rooms to improve. I'll have a look. -- Yao