* Peter Maydell (peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 at 15:56, Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > * Peter Maydell (peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > > I think on balance I would go for: > > > * remove (ie deprecate-and-drop) 'singlestep' from the QMP struct, > > > rather than merely renaming it > > > * if anybody comes along and says they want to do this via QMP, > > > implement Paolo's idea of putting the accelerator object > > > somewhere they can get at it and use qom-get/qom-set on it > > > [My guess is this is very unlikely: nobody's complained so > > > far that QMP doesn't permit setting 'singlestep'; and > > > wanting read without write seems even more marginal.] > > > * keep the HMP commands, but have both read and write directly > > > talk to the accel object. I favour splitting the 'read' > > > part out into its own 'info one-insn-per-tb', for consistency > > > (then 'info status' matches the QMP query-status) > > > > If it's pretty obscure, then the qom-set/get is fine; as long > > as there is a way to do it, then just make sure in the commit > > message you say what the replacement command is > > The point is that there isn't a replacement way to do it > *right now*, but that we have a sketch of how we'd do it if > anybody showed up and really cared about it. I think the chances > of that happening are quite close to zero, so I don't > want to do the work to actually implement the mechanism > on spec... Sure, then just drop it. Dave > -- PMM > -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@xxxxxxxxxx / Manchester, UK
