From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31358 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2011 15:53:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact archer-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Sender: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Received: (qmail 31347 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jan 2011 15:53:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: Phil Muldoon To: Tom Tromey Cc: Project Archer Subject: Re: systemtap markers and gdb References: Reply-to: pmuldoon@redhat.com X-URL: http://www.redhat.com Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:53:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Tom Tromey's message of "Thu, 13 Jan 2011 08:39:08 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2011-q1/txt/msg00012.txt.bz2 Tom Tromey writes: > Sergio and I are working on letting gdb stop when a systemtap static > marker is hit. > > I thought I would post the documentation for the user-facing bits for > comments. > > The diff below is missing a little context. The main new command is: > > catch marker PROVIDER NAME > > Let me know what you think. Why the catch syntax, and not just an addition to the linespec code so that we can just set regular breakpoints on them? It would be neat then to interface with the upcoming condition/action python code. (Though I guess in mediation, though we have no catchpoint support in the Python API at present, there is no reason that we cannot at some point). Cheers Phil