This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [patch 5/5] Document

On 11/17/2011 08:28 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> > +disconnects from the remote stub, pending tracepoints still exist but
>> > +can not be resolved while @value{GDBN} is disconnected.
> Sorry to be picky, but I'm trying to read this from a user's perspective,
> and it still confuses me.  What does "pending tracepoints still exist"
> mean?  Do you mean they still exist in GDB?  That's true for all kinds
> of breakpoints, so it doesn't add anything.  If you mean that they exist
> on the target, then what does it mean for a pending tracepoint to exist
> on the target?  What we're really trying to say is that pending tracepoints
> don't work with disconnected tracing.  How about:

I agree that "pending tracepoints still exist" is confusing, and we
should remove this sentence.  However, I don't think we should express
"pending tracepoints don't work with disconnected tracing.", because,
"pending tracepoints" and "disconnected tracing" are orthogonal to each
other.  A remote stub can support either/both/none of them.

> The resolution of pending tracepoints requires @value{GDBN} support---
> when debugging with the remote target, and @value{GDBN} disconnects from the
> remote stub (@pxref{disconnected tracing}), pending tracepoints can not be I suggest remove "(@pxref{disconnected tracing})" here.  What do
you think?

Yao (éå)

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]