Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net> writes: > On 08/04/2015 10:22 AM, Alex Bennée wrote: >> >> Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net> writes: >> >>> On 08/04/2015 08:15 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>> On 4 August 2015 at 16:11, Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>> Aurelien Jarno <aurel...@aurel32.net> writes: >>>>>> On 2015-08-03 10:14, Alex Bennée wrote: >>>>>> In practice this is not true for linked TB. Should we also disable TB >>>>>> linking when this option is enabled? >>>>> >>>>> Good question. I suspect yes because if you've gone to level of wanting >>>>> exec tracing you'll probably get confused by the chaining. Of course it >>>>> will run a lot slower then. >>>> >>>> Unless the bug you were trying to track down is caused by the exec >>>> chaining, of course... But yes, I think we get more people wanting >>>> chaining to be disableable. >>>> >>>> Not sure we want to tie it to the 'cpu' debug option, though -- it >>>> applies just as much to 'exec'. >>> >>> Does it make more sense to have a 'nochain' debug option, and not tie it to >>> either 'cpu' or 'exec'? It might be occasionally useful on its own, simply >>> to >>> determine if a bug does exist in the exec chaining. >> >> Would that make sense as a debug option or should we have a specific set >> of TCG options to alter its behaviour? > > > That's what I'm saying -- probably a separate debug option is better.
Sorry I meant should we add it to -d (as in -d nochain) or have some tcg opts (--tcg nochain,blah) > > > r~ -- Alex Bennée
