Re: [PATCH, gdbserver] Pass tracepoint to 'add_traceframe_block'.

[Yao Qi <yao at codesourcery dot com>]

On 01/08/2013 01:22 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> A cross link to the other thread would have been helpful:
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-12/msg00368.html
>
> I replied on that other thread.  If going this route, the
> code in this patch looks fine.

Pedro, thanks for the review and adding a cross reference here.

> On 12/20/2012 02:52 AM, Yao Qi wrote:
>
> > >Note that after this patch, GDB will get the correct value of
> > >hit_count and traceframe_usage by means of command 'tstatus', so
> > >tracepoint 'hit count' should appear in the output of 'info
> > >tracepoints'.  gdb.trace/tstatus.exp is updated in this patch to check
> > >'hit count' and 'traceframe usage' unconditionally.
> But what about:
>
> > >-    # Tracepoint hit count is optional, so pass it either way.
> > >-
> ?
>
> And it seems like traceframe usage as just as optional as
> hit count, both being reported by qTP, which the target
> may not implement?

I didn't fully understand "optional" in the line of comment.

The per-tracepoint hit counts/traceframe usage and qTP was added by this 
patch,

  [PATCH v2] Tracing notes and metadata
  http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-11/msg00484.html

and the corresponding tests (for hit count) were added by this patch as 
well.  IMO, the hit count and traceframe usage is *not* optional, 
because the same patch adds the support.  Do we have to worry about 
other stubs or old GDBserver that don't support qTP?

--
Yao (éå)