Re: [MI non-stop 06/11, RFA/RFC] Report non-stop availability, and allow to enable everything with one command.

[Vladimir Prus <vladimir at codesourcery dot com>]

On Tuesday 05 August 2008 23:08:46 Pedro Alves wrote:
> A Tuesday 05 August 2008 19:27:35, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
> > I can't follow all the possibilities being juggled in this
> > conversation.  But why not just set non-stop in advance, regardless of
> > the target, and then issue an error at run / target remote / wherever
> > if non-stop is not available?
> 
> Yes, that's what I've been proposing/saying we must do.  Clearly, I
> can't express myself that well.
> 
> > > We leaves some slack to add new modes like this, which would
> > > combine (1) and (2):
> > >
> > > set prefered-execution-mode
> > >  "all-stop"
> > >     prefer all-stop, but if the target doesn't support it, fine.
> > >  "non-stop"
> > >     prefer non-stop, but if the target doesn't support it, fine.
> > >  "force-all-stop"
> > >     require all-stop, fail if the target refuses it.
> > >  "force-non-stop"
> > >     require all-stop, fail if the target refuses it.
> >
> > Please don't, the user should know what they get.
> 
> Ok, then we're back to what we have currently.  I only proposed
> that, because Vladimir didn't like the exception/error that is
> currenly thrown.  (In the unsubmited remote target; linux
> doesn't do it yet).  I'll leave it to Vladimir to justify
> not having an error and falling back to all-stop/non-stop, if he
> still wants it.

My motivation was that the most intuitive model is that of
immediate application of non-stop flag, with error produced
immediately. This is hard to implement.

Next most intuitive model is "I prefer non-stop mode", which is
what I propose.

The model where 'non-stop' variable is a hard request, 
but the error is delayed seems fairly unconventional to me.

- Volodya