Re: [PATCH] tracepoint: add new trace command "printf"[0] gdb

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>]

Doug Evans wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Doug Evans <dje@google.com> wrote:
>> [One might think why not just add printf (and whatever else) to
>> tracepoints and leave it at that.  Tracepoints to me convey a specific
>> use-case and I'm not sure we should muddy that up.  But 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).  This is not an approval though.   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.  Someone 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 tracepoints?
> 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 now.

I don't quite understand the "use case" for printf in tracepoints.