From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9069 invoked by alias); 1 Mar 2008 19:29:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 9061 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Mar 2008 19:29:29 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from Unknown (HELO mail.hofr.at) (194.112.174.227) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Mar 2008 19:28:58 +0000 Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 19:29:00 -0000 From: Nicholas Mc Guire To: Doug Evans cc: Lokesh Gupta , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Tracepoints functionality for local targets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <21b011a40802260027r596c2c0bt96339538b8e5cc92@mail.gmail.com> <20080226131031.GA9105@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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: 2008-03/txt/msg00003.txt.bz2 > > > > > > Is there some work planned for the working of the tracepoints for > > > local targets? > > > > Not yet, but Doug was talking about it on this list a few days ago. > > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2008-02/msg00156.html > > The thread starts out talking about gdbserver, but both it and native > are (briefly) discussed. At this point I'm just researching projects, > I'm not actively working on this one. > well we actually use gdb tracepoints with local targets via gdbserver and as that works just fine I don't see much point in having two implementations - the overhead of having a local gdbserver running is not too high. Note though that with Linux at least there are some subtle problems related to the way ptraced processes are woken up resulting in relatively large delays in the child process being traced (see infos and traces at http://dslab.lzu.edu.cn/~hofrat/tp.html) patches for tracepoints can also be found at ftp://dslab.lzu.edu.cn/pub/gdb_tracepoints/ hofrat