From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20073 invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2012 15:47:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 20060 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Aug 2012 15:46:59 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,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; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:46:39 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q7NFkcsA025957 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:46:38 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q7NFkbGV023572 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:46:37 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Yao Qi Cc: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Set $trace_frame and $tracepoint on disconnect References: <1345550573-24752-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:47:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <1345550573-24752-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> (Yao Qi's message of "Tue, 21 Aug 2012 20:02:53 +0800") Message-ID: <87zk5lpq5e.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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/msg00664.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Yao" == Yao Qi writes: Yao> The chunk for tracepoint.c is to set these variables correctly Yao> when GDB disconnects and some small refactors in code. Yao> Regression tested on x86_64-linux, two fails above are fixed. Yao> OK to apply? Looks good to me. I read your patch and traced through the various tracepoint.c functions. 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. Tom