Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:53:58 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org>, current@FreeBSD.org, arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: DDB scripting, output capture, and textdumps Message-ID: <20071219105229.T95322@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <86ir2vklnm.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <20071218120359.E15521@fledge.watson.org> <47682ED1.7000702@FreeBSD.org> <20071218204401.E33011@fledge.watson.org> <86ir2vklnm.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> writes: >> I'd certainly be fine with it being added to GENERIC on our various >> architectures. > > s/GENERIC/DEFAULTS/ At the risk of creating a bikeshed, I thought we had a consensus that DEFAULTS should never be used :-). What I'd love to get, as a bikeshed alternative, would be feedback on the usability of DDB scripting, output capture, and textdumps... I know there are a few nits, such as the fact that "continue" at the end of an automatically-run script for a KDB entry event still results in sitting at a DDB prompt, for example. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071219105229.T95322>