RE: [MI] Extending -list-thread-groups --available to show cores

[Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@ericsson.com>]

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vladimir Prus [mailto:vladimir@codesourcery.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 2:44 AM
>

[...]

> > > [CONSIDER: Shall -list-target-features report if 
> --available + recurse works?]
> > 
> > Say a target does not support this, do you forsee a 
> performance impact if the 
> > frontend still uses --recurse in this case?  If not, then a 
> frontend could
> > figure out if this is supported by looking at the result of 
> the command.  I think
> > that would be enough.  
> > 
> > In fact, if there is a performance impact, a frontend could 
> stop using "--recurse"
> > when it first noticed the missing "thread=" from the 
> output.  But in that case, 
> > using -list-target-features would be more elegant.
> > 
> > That being say, it won't hurt any FEs if 
> -list-target-features did report this
> > anyway.  (In Eclipse, we don't use -list-target-features 
> yet because we've focused
> > on Linux targets, but I think we should improved the 
> support of other targets by 
> > using -list-target-features.)
> 
> I don't think that there's any perfomance impact for getting 
> --recurse when
> it's not supported. And on the other hand, there's some 
> trickery involved
> in reporting --recurse support, specifically over a remote connection.
> I'm gonna skip this for now, unless a real need to test for 
> this up-front will surface.

Sounds good to me.

[...]

> > > Example:
> > > 
> > >    -list-thread-groups --available --recurse 1 17 18
> > >     ^done,groups=[{id="17", 
> types="process",pid="yyy",num_children="2",cores=[1,2],
> > >                    threads=[{id="1",target-id="Thread 
> 0xb7e14b90",cores=[1]},
> > >                             {id="2",target-id="Thread 
> 0xb7e14b90",cores=[2]}]}]
> > 
> > Above it says that "--recurse" is for -list-thread-groups 
> without parameters.
> > I guess the example should be 
> > -list-thread-groups --available 17 18
> > Would using --recurse here cause an error, or be ignored?
> 
> In fact, I did not meant to prohibit --available + --recurse 
> + several groups. I've adjust the wording above.

So, all combinations are allowed.  That is great.
My last comment on the new revision.  It stills says:
"2. To cut down on the number of roundtrips, the 
    --list-thread-groups without parameters may optionally 
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    recurse into the thread hierarchy"

It shouldn't say "without parameters", since --recurse
will be allowed all the time.

Thanks

Marc