* Peter Maydell (peter.maydell(a)linaro.org) wrote:
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 at 15:56, Dr. David Alan Gilbert
<dgilbert(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> * Peter Maydell (peter.maydell(a)linaro.org) 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(a)redhat.com / Manchester, UK