Re: [PATCH 2/6] Introduce `pre_expanded sals'

[Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@redhat.com>]

Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> writes:

>>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com> writes:
>
> [ multi-location breakpoint stuff ]
> Pedro> I strongly suggest not relying on changing this as prerequisite
> Pedro> for stap support.
>
> Yesterday I started wondering if this patch series could go in if
> re-expressed as catchpoints.
>
> That is, instead of:
>
>    break probe:arg
>
> we would use:
>
>    catch probe arg

IMHO this is OK.  I would prefer to see this command as a breakpoint
because I have always seen catchpoints as "event-oriented breakpoints",
such as the calling/returning of a syscall, or a fork, or exec.  But
this is my understanding, so...

However, I think that the stap integration is an important feature and
shouldn't be blocked anymore.

> The drawback here is that the linespec approach works automatically with
> tracepoints.  We could fix this via a new argument to 'strace', say '-p'
> (for "probe").

Sounds good.

Regards,

Sergio.