From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1705 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2003 04:20:51 -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 1698 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2003 04:20:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zenia.home) (12.223.225.216) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Oct 2003 04:20:51 -0000 Received: by zenia.home (Postfix, from userid 5433) id 55BA620766; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 23:19:38 -0500 (EST) To: "Newman, Mark (N-Superior Technical Resource Inc)" Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: FW: tracepoint frames References: From: Jim Blandy Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 04:20:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00114.txt.bz2 "Newman, Mark (N-Superior Technical Resource Inc)" writes: > > Right, but GDB could request more information from the stub when it > > creates the tracepoint. The stub shouldn't have to collect > > anything at > > all that GDB didn't tell it to. > > > > That is an interesting point! This could be left up to the user. > > Would that be acceptable to the community? If I understand what's been said, that's the way the existing tracepoint support works --- you have to tell it everything you want to collect. If you have selected a tracepoint hit and you ask for something that wasn't collected, you get an error.