clayborg added a comment. This patch does nicely follow the way other GDB remote packets are implemented. I wonder if we should just have a "jTrace" packet that is JSON from the start? This is more of a question to anyone that cares about the direction of the GDB remote protocol we are using. We might not multiple flavors of the qTrace packet in that case. Just add a key/value pair that say what the packet command is (start, stop, get trace data, get metadata, etc). I am curious to see what others think. I don't have any objections to this patch as is, but just wanted to check.
================ Comment at: docs/lldb-gdb-remote.txt:212 //---------------------------------------------------------------------- +// QTrace:1:type:<type>; +// ---------------- Should we make all these new packets JSON based to start with? "jTrace"? If we have any need for JSON at all in this or the other new packets I would say lets just go with JSON packets. They are currently prefixed with "j". If we go this route we should specify the mandatory key/value pairs in the header doc. We should also allow a JSON dictionary from the trace config up at the SBTrace layer to make it into this packet? https://reviews.llvm.org/D32585 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
