From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28100 invoked by alias); 21 Feb 2008 01:06:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 28092 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Feb 2008 01:06:49 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from bluesmobile.specifix.com (HELO bluesmobile.specifix.com) (216.129.118.140) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:06:31 +0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (bluesmobile.specifix.com [216.129.118.140]) by bluesmobile.specifix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0F853BFD5; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:06:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: gdbserver tracepoint support (from Project Ideas page) From: Michael Snyder To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: References: <1203552043.19253.186.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:34:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1203555989.19253.190.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.3 (2.10.3-7.fc7) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-02/txt/msg00160.txt.bz2 On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 16:19 -0800, Doug Evans wrote: > On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Michael Snyder wrote: > > > Can anyone give me an idea of what they think this involves, and if > > > any work has been done on this since the wiki entry was written? > > > > > > What work it involves -- > > 1) First gdbserver must understand the extra set of > > tracepoint remote protocol commands (or a subset of them: > > tracepoint support is very subset-able). I'm sure these > > commands are documented somewhere... > > 2) Then gdbserver has to know how to implement a tracepoint, > > ie. to stop the child, quickly collect a well defined set of > > data into a cache, then continue the child without any > > interaction with gdb. > > > > AFAIK no one has worked on it in a while. > > Thanks. > > Another question. While there mightn't be much benefit to > implementing tracepoints natively as far speed of data collection is > concerned, having a consistent u/i and capabilities native vs remote > might be reasons to warrant a native implementation. Anyone have any > thoughts on a native implementation? When you say "[not] much benefit to implementing tracepoints natively", do you mean "as opposed to just using gdbserver or equivalent"? I've given thought to the issue, and I think Jim Blandy has as well. Not enough thought to make a very complete picture... I think it would be useful, but then, I've always thought tracepoints would find more use than they seem to have in practice...