This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 2/6] Introduce `pre_expanded sals'
- From: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj at redhat dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>, Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 14:47:02 -0300
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] Introduce `pre_expanded sals'
- References: <m3mxk6pvbs.fsf@redhat.com> <201104121218.08910.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20110412115308.GA384@host1.jankratochvil.net> <201104121430.24596.pedro@codesourcery.com> <m3vcun8xuo.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> writes:
>>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com> writes:
>
> [ multi-location breakpoint stuff ]
> Pedro> I strongly suggest not relying on changing this as prerequisite
> Pedro> for stap support.
>
> Yesterday I started wondering if this patch series could go in if
> re-expressed as catchpoints.
>
> That is, instead of:
>
> break probe:arg
>
> we would use:
>
> catch probe arg
IMHO this is OK. I would prefer to see this command as a breakpoint
because I have always seen catchpoints as "event-oriented breakpoints",
such as the calling/returning of a syscall, or a fork, or exec. But
this is my understanding, so...
However, I think that the stap integration is an important feature and
shouldn't be blocked anymore.
> The drawback here is that the linespec approach works automatically with
> tracepoints. We could fix this via a new argument to 'strace', say '-p'
> (for "probe").
Sounds good.
Regards,
Sergio.