From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 41637 invoked by alias); 6 Mar 2018 14:40:21 -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 41621 invoked by uid 89); 6 Mar 2018 14:40:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=sk:google, sk:google., trend X-HELO: smtp.polymtl.ca Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (HELO smtp.polymtl.ca) (132.207.4.11) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Mar 2018 14:40:17 +0000 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id w26EeBI9009694 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 09:40:16 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 372FF1E662; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 09:40:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from simark.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 865051E018; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 09:40:10 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 14:40:00 -0000 From: Simon Marchi To: "Metzger, Markus T" Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] btrace: Remove ui_out cleanups In-Reply-To: References: <20180304205605.13037-1-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <20180304205605.13037-3-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> Message-ID: X-Sender: simon.marchi@polymtl.ca User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.4 X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Tue, 6 Mar 2018 14:40:11 +0000 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-03/txt/msg00144.txt.bz2 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