Re: [PATCH 3/3] btrace: Remove ui_out cleanups

[Simon Marchi <simon dot marchi at polymtl dot ca>]

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