From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4080 invoked by alias); 9 Sep 2014 16:32:50 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 4069 invoked by uid 89); 9 Sep 2014 16:32:50 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 16:32:44 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1XROLL-0001V9-T7 from Maciej_Rozycki@mentor.com ; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 09:32:36 -0700 Received: from localhost (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.247.3; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 17:32:34 +0100 Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 16:32:00 -0000 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Pedro Alves CC: , Yao Qi Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] GDB/testsuite: Add/correct gdb.reverse timeout tweaks In-Reply-To: <53D79621.8050805@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <53D79621.8050805@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2014-09/txt/msg00238.txt.bz2 On Tue, 29 Jul 2014, Pedro Alves wrote: > Looks good to me. Thanks, I have applied this change now. > I wonder though, whether: > > On 07/24/2014 11:39 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > +set savedtimeout $timeout > > +if { [target_info exists gdb,timeout] > > + && $timeout < [target_info gdb,timeout] } { > > + set oldtimeout [target_info gdb,timeout] > > +} else { > > + set oldtimeout $timeout > > +} > > +set timeout [expr $oldtimeout * 2] > > ... this pattern can be somewhat factored into a > procedure? That'd also serve the duty of being the > simple place we document it. Good point, that would be a nice improvement indeed. I have been continuously being dragged off to various other stuff recently though so if I were to consider this improvement a prerequisite to pushing the timeout tweaks I have made here, they may well have not ended up integrated within a reasonable time frame. I have therefore committed them as they are, as noted above, so as not to let perfect be the enemy of good. I'll keep in mind that our timeouts would benefit from some polishing yet and hopefully get back to it sometime sooner rather than later. Unless someone beats me to it, that is -- I won't mind that, not a little bit. The stuff is easy to grep for, so the pieces to improve should be easy to identify. Maciej