Re: [PATCH 3/3] btrace: Remove ui_out cleanups

Simon Marchi
2018-03-06T14:40:21Z

On 2018-03-06 02:30, Metzger, Markus T wrote:
> I prefer consistency. I we agreed to use pointers instead of
> references
> in other parts of GDB, let's do so everywhere.

There was no formal decision, I would just say it's the current trend.
But it would be a good idea to formalize it, so we don't have to wonder
about it again, I'll send a proposal in a separate mail. For reference,
I checked the Google C++ style guide, and they forbid non-const
reference:

https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Reference_Arguments

I'll push this patch with pointers then.

>> Yes, I have ran the gdb.btrace/*.exp tests locally on two different
>> machines and saw no regressions. However, the processors may be a bit
>> old (Q6600 from 2007 and i5-4310U from 2014), so it's possible that
>> not
>> all required features are available, and therefore some tests may be
>> skipped. So if you want to be sure, here's a branch for you to test:
>
> You would get an "untested" if btrace tests are skipped. As long as
> you're not getting all "untested", you should be fine. There is only
> one test, tsx.exp, that requires recent hardware and compiler.
>
> It would use the method that is available on your target preferring
> PT over BTS. But this change is not related to trace decode so it
> shouldn't matter.
>
> I ran the tests on recent hardware using PT and everything passes.

Ok, thanks!

Simon