From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21400 invoked by alias); 13 Mar 2012 23:40:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 21391 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Mar 2012 23:40:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:39:47 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38A6C1C6AC8; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:39:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id e8jI9vCVSvfj; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:39:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 012D91C6249; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:39:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B3464145615; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:39:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:40:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Stan Shebs Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] dynamic printf Message-ID: <20120313233939.GX2853@adacore.com> References: <4F4DCDD5.2040807@earthlink.net> <20120229161337.GD3118@adacore.com> <4F5FD4DD.1010603@earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F5FD4DD.1010603@earthlink.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2012-03/txt/msg00460.txt.bz2 > >Or like a tracepoint that does printf? Would it influence an operation > >such as "next", for instance? > > > > > > There is a tracepoint similarity; one of the vague future-direction > ideas is to somehow refactor tracing and breaking so one could shift > back and forth freely, for instance to decide to collect some data > at a breakpoint, without having to do the formalized trace > experiment setup. > > I'm not sure what you mean by influencing "next"? I was referring to some suggestions that your new feature was equivalent to a breakpoint with two commands that do the printing followed by a continue. This method looks like a great way of tracing code (meaning adding debugging traces), except that if the breakpoint is hit during a "next", then you get your trace followed by your program running away until hitting the next breakpoint, instead of stopping on the next line of code. That's why I like referring to the tracepoint terminology... -- Joel