From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25124 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2013 16:55:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 25094 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Feb 2013 16:55:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:55:09 +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 r1RGt1kN021300 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:55:01 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r1RGsxKT025753; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:55:00 -0500 Message-ID: <512E3A63.9040209@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:55:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yao Qi CC: "Abid, Hafiz" , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, stan@codesourcery.com Subject: Re: [patch] Change trace buffer size References: <1361211216.2217.2@abidh-ubunto1104> <5122E8C9.2070205@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <5122E8C9.2070205@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: 2013-02/txt/msg00690.txt.bz2 On 02/19/2013 02:51 AM, Yao Qi wrote: >> > > We may mention the new remote packet in NEWS. Indeed. s/may/should/. >> >> @@ -912,6 +913,9 @@ update_current_target (void) >> de_fault (to_set_circular_trace_buffer, >> (void (*) (int)) >> target_ignore); >> + de_fault (to_set_trace_buffer_size, >> + (void (*) (LONGEST)) >> + target_ignore); > > I am wondering 'tcomplain' may be better than 'target_ignore'. I think it's better to have the command behave the same as the other related "set circular-trace-buffer" set disconnected-tracing. We've discussed this behavior in the context of the patch that adds one of these other commands (or both?). Do you see a reason this command should behave different? tcomplain would trigger if you used the "set ..." command before being connected to any target (or after disconnecting). -- Pedro Alves