From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15416 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2011 17:47:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 15406 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jul 2011 17:47:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 17:47:18 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6THlAhp023198 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:47:10 -0400 Received: from psique ([10.3.112.4]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6THl38J028931; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:47:05 -0400 From: Sergio Durigan Junior To: Tom Tromey Cc: Pedro Alves , Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] Introduce `pre_expanded sals' References: <201104121218.08910.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20110412115308.GA384@host1.jankratochvil.net> <201104121430.24596.pedro@codesourcery.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:36:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Tom Tromey's message of "Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:58:07 -0600") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2011-07/txt/msg00815.txt.bz2 Tom Tromey writes: >>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves 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.