Re: 'catch syscall' Status

[Sérgio Durigan Júnior <sergiodj at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>]

Hi Phil,

On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 17:04 +0100, Phil Muldoon wrote:
> Sérgio Durigan Júnior wrote:
> > Hello everybody,
> >
> > As some of you may know, I am working with Thiago and the GDB team here
> > in LTC Brazil. Yesterday, Thiago and I wrote this piece of text
> > explaining in a few words what's the status of the 'catch syscall'
> > feature (to be implemented). Hope you enjoy it.
> >
> > Feature: 'catch syscall'
> >
> > There is a prototype of this already implemented [1], but unfortunately
> > the submitter seems to have disappeared in the dust.
> >
> > The work can be divided in two basic parts:
> >
> > 1. Get notification when the inferior enters and/or leaves a syscall
> >   
> 
> What would be really useful - perhaps as  "phase 2" is: catch syscall 
> <name>. catch syscall without a user-defined filter of syscalls would 
> stop the inferior a bit too often, imo. Maybe this is already implied in 
> the work above.

Sure, it would really be useful. Maybe you're right and the right time
for this to be implemented is really in the "phase 2", but I think we
could try to push this on the "phase 1" stage with a little more
effort :-). I think Thiago is more prepared than me to give this answer
by now...

> This is a feature I have been looking forward too for a long time, so 
> glad to see it being thought about/worked on.

:-)

Regards,

-- 
Sérgio Durigan Júnior
Linux on Power Toolchain - Software Engineer
Linux Technology Center - LTC
IBM Brazil