From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24319 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2011 17:24:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 24309 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jan 2011 17:24:41 -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; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 17:24:36 +0000 Received: from hpaq13.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq13.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.13]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p05HOYqd027925 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 09:24:34 -0800 Received: from qyk10 (qyk10.prod.google.com [10.241.83.138]) by hpaq13.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p05HJDIO022056 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 09:24:33 -0800 Received: by qyk10 with SMTP id 10so16314727qyk.7 for ; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 09:24:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.28.133 with SMTP id m5mr21652601qac.314.1294248272410; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 09:24:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.118.80 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 09:24:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 17:24:00 -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/msg00078.txt.bz2 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. =A0Tracepoints to me convey a specific > use-case and I'm not sure we should muddy that up. =A0But 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). =A0This is not an approval though. =A0 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. =A0Someone 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.