From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22652 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2003 13:51:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 22491 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2003 13:50:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Oct 2003 13:50:59 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.22 #1 (Debian)) id 1A6VlH-00087D-Mo; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 09:50:55 -0400 Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 13:51:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: "Newman, Mark (N-Superior Technical Resource Inc)" Cc: Jim Blandy , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: tracepoint frames Message-ID: <20031006135055.GB31005@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: "Newman, Mark (N-Superior Technical Resource Inc)" , Jim Blandy , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00094.txt.bz2 On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 09:03:03AM -0400, Newman, Mark (N-Superior Technical Resource Inc) wrote: > > Jim - > > When a trace point is hit some data is collected - certainly at a > minimum the data specified by the collect statements. However from some > earlier conversations and a converstaion with Ramana that additional > information should be collected. Michael indicated that he collected a > "frame" in addition to the registers, data items, etc specified in the > collect commands. > > Is it necessary to collect enough information to support say a > "backtrace" command (after a tfind)? Well, it would be nice but it's not generally possible. The backtrace logic is pretty hairy and target-dependent; the stub has no way to find out what will be necessary. > I have found that simple "print" commands will work and that "printf" > commands will not work unless one sets up the complete environment. Is > there a requirement or a preference on the part of the community as to > what needs to be available when analyzing a tracepoint? Probably if any additional data ought to be collected that shoud be implemented in the GDB client, not silently by the stub. > > Mark > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Blandy [mailto:jimb@redhat.com] > Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 7:57 PM > To: Newman, Mark (N-Superior Technical Resource Inc) > Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com > Subject: Re: tracepoint frames > > > > "Newman, Mark (N-Superior Technical Resource Inc)" > writes: > > The question has come up as to what needs to be collected when a > > tracepoint is hit. I understand that a "frame" needs to be > > collected. Can someone tell me what a "frame" is. Is it a stack > > frame, a trace frame, or what? > > Well, we do have trace frames; a trace frame is the clump of > information collected for a single tracepoint hit. It includes > registers, and assorted regions of memory. > > You can also ask a trace frame to collect things like local variables, > arguments, or registers. But all that gets parsed by the code in > tracepoint.c and turned into a 'struct collection_list', that's just a > set of registers, memory regions, and agent expressions to collect; > it's all parsed for you. So at that level, there are no frames any > more --- everything is explicit > > But I don't feel like I've answered the question. In what context did > it come up? > -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer