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. r~
