From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30335 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2003 14:01:05 -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 30319 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2003 14:01:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailgw3a.lmco.com) (192.35.35.7) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Oct 2003 14:01:03 -0000 Received: from emss04g01.ems.lmco.com ([166.17.13.122]) by mailgw3a.lmco.com (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h96E0Q714106; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 10:00:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.lmco.com by lmco.com (PMDF V6.1-1X6 #30760) id <0HMC000019KL51@lmco.com>; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 10:00:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from EMSS04I00.us.lmco.com ([166.17.13.135]) by lmco.com (PMDF V6.1-1X6 #30760) with ESMTP id <0HMC004R69KHEE@lmco.com>; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 10:00:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from EMSS04M11.us.lmco.com ([144.219.10.27]) by EMSS04I00.us.lmco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2966); Mon, 06 Oct 2003 09:59:49 -0400 Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 14:01:00 -0000 From: "Newman, Mark (N-Superior Technical Resource Inc)" Subject: RE: tracepoint frames To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Jim Blandy , gdb@sources.redhat.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Oct 2003 13:59:49.0683 (UTC) FILETIME=[1B993030:01C38C12] X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00095.txt.bz2 First - thanks for the response -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Jacobowitz [mailto:drow@mvista.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 9:51 AM To: Newman, Mark (N-Superior Technical Resource Inc) Cc: Jim Blandy; gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: tracepoint frames 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. If this is necessary I was thinking that the sub could collect the whole stack. However this seems to be prohibitively expensive in both size and speed. > 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. I thought that the data was collected only in the stub when a tracepoint is hit. GDB never sees the data until a "g" or an "m" protocol message arrives at 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