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

Doug Evans
2011-01-05T17:24:43Z

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.