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

[Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 02:17, Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
>

http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-01/msg00052.html

Wish this link can be helpful.  :)

Thanks,
Hui