From: David Taylor <dtaylor@emc.com>
To: Stan Shebs <stanshebs@earthlink.net>
Cc: "gdb@sourceware.org" <gdb@sourceware.org>
Subject: filtering traceframes (was: Re: possible QTFrame enhancement)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 19:50:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <17376.1423856828@usendtaylorx2l> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54405367.9030000@earthlink.net>
I've been thinking some more about filtering traceframes.
You can think of the variations of tfind command as basically being
filtering variants. Show me the next / previous trace frame
. at a particular pc (tfind pc)
. from a particular tracepoint (tfind tp)
. within some pc range (tfind range)
. outside some pc range (tfind outside)
And we have users that do filtering, on the desktop, based on other
criteria.
I would like to move much of this filtering to the stub.
If you have a small number of trace frames or if most of your trace
frame 'match' the filter, then it probably doesn't matter where the
filtering is done. But, if you have a large number of frame (e.g., over
100,000) and a small fraction (say, 1/1000) match the filter, then
it can make a big difference to where the filtering occurs.
At first I was thinking just support
tfind expr <expression>
but on reflection, I don't think that that is enough. You want to be
able to say ``give me the next / previous trace frame that is
. at a particular pc (tfind pc)
. from a particular tracepoint (tfind tp)
. within some pc range (tfind range)
. outside some pc range (tfind outside)
*AND* matches this expression.
So, now I'm thinking, for user interface:
tfind <tfind subcommand>
[-r | --reverse]
[-e <expr> | --expr <expr>]
<subcommand args>
where [-e <expr> | --expr <expr>] would only be defined for those tfind
subcommands where it made sense.
Using the existing QTFrame remote protocol messages but tacking on
:X<byte count>,<hex encoded expression>
at the end. And letting GDB know that the stub supports it by adding
TraceFrameExprs followed by '+' or '-' to the qSupported response.
(Default being either not supported or probe for it (assuming there's a
reasonable way to probe for it.))
I haven't begun to think about implementation details (and I have other
things on my plate, so I'm certain to not get to it this quarter even if
I get management approval), but I would like feedback and thoughts.
David
dtaylor at emc dot com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-13 19:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-09-18 21:06 possible QTFrame enhancement David Taylor
2014-10-16 17:03 ` David Taylor
2014-10-16 21:15 ` Pedro Alves
2014-10-16 23:23 ` Stan Shebs
2014-10-22 18:37 ` David Taylor
2014-10-29 19:01 ` Doug Evans
2014-10-29 22:18 ` Stan Shebs
2015-02-13 19:50 ` David Taylor [this message]
2015-02-22 16:38 ` filtering traceframes (was: Re: possible QTFrame enhancement) Doug Evans
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=17376.1423856828@usendtaylorx2l \
--to=dtaylor@emc.com \
--cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
--cc=stanshebs@earthlink.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox