From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16520 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2011 19:21:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 16496 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jan 2011 19:21:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.44.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Jan 2011 19:21:40 +0000 Received: from hpaq1.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq1.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.1]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p03JLcLB016000 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 11:21:38 -0800 Received: from qwi4 (qwi4.prod.google.com [10.241.195.4]) by hpaq1.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p03JLabq022455 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 11:21:37 -0800 Received: by qwi4 with SMTP id 4so14139182qwi.11 for ; Mon, 03 Jan 2011 11:21:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.28.133 with SMTP id m5mr19451440qac.314.1294082496300; Mon, 03 Jan 2011 11:21:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.118.80 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 11:21:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 19:21:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracepoint: add new trace command "printf"[0] gdb From: Doug Evans To: Hui Zhu Cc: gdb-patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-System-Of-Record: true 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/msg00046.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Hui Zhu wrote: > Hi, > > I add a new patch add new trace command "printf". > This printf is same with the simple gdb command, it can do formatted > output. =A0But it will happen in gdbserver part when it break by a > tracepoint. > Then the user can get the format value that he want in tracepint. =A0It > will be more easy and clear to handle the bug sometimes. One could do this with a breakpoint and attaching commands to the breakpoint too, right? Or are they too cumbersome for the intended use case? [Extending tracepoints like this doesn't seem justified yet, so I'm just looking for more data.]