From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2314 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2011 18:18:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 2304 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jan 2011 18:18:04 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com) (65.115.85.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:17:58 +0000 Received: from mailhost3.vmware.com (mailhost3.vmware.com [10.16.27.45]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5699E12192; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 10:17:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com (promd-2s-dhcp138.eng.vmware.com [10.20.124.138]) by mailhost3.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A14ACD968; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 10:17:56 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D24B5D3.3040202@vmware.com> Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:18:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20101201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans CC: Hui Zhu , gdb-patches Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracepoint: add new trace command "printf"[0] gdb References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00079.txt.bz2 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. 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.