From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4335 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2011 06:42:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 4327 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jan 2011 06:42:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ww0-f43.google.com (HELO mail-ww0-f43.google.com) (74.125.82.43) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 06:42:39 +0000 Received: by wwi17 with SMTP id 17so15999881wwi.12 for ; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 22:42:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.159.69 with SMTP id r47mr252830wek.105.1294296155792; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 22:42:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.182.206 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 22:42:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4D24B5D3.3040202@vmware.com> References: <4D24B5D3.3040202@vmware.com> From: Hui Zhu Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 06:42:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracepoint: add new trace command "printf"[0] gdb To: Michael Snyder Cc: Doug Evans , gdb-patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-01/txt/msg00115.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 02:17, Michael Snyder wrote: > Doug Evans wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Doug Evans wrote: >>> >>> [One might think why not just add printf (and whatever else) to >>> tracepoints and leave it at that. =A0Tracepoints to me convey a specific >>> use-case and I'm not sure we should muddy that up. =A0But for now I >>> suppose printf could be sufficiently useful, so I'm not opposed to the >>> patch (pragmatic hacks are sometimes useful enough to justify their >>> existence). =A0This is not an approval though. =A0 I can see the patch >>> needs at least a few changes, but before reviewing it I'd like to make >>> sure there is general agreement on this approach. =A0Someone else is >>> free to review and approve it of course.] >> >> I haven't heard comments from any other GMs. >> Does anyone have a problem with adding some kind of printf to tracepoint= s? >> Or does anyone have a problem with adding a new kind of command list >> to breakpoints that is executed on the target? >> [P.S. If you respond, IWBN to include your thoughts on why.] >> I'm inclined to go with having some kind of printf in tracepoints for no= w. > > I don't quite understand the "use case" for printf in tracepoints. > > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-01/msg00052.html Wish this link can be helpful. :) Thanks, Hui