Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: tracepoint maintainance models | From | Alan Cox <> | Date | Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:49:40 +0100 |
| |
Ar Llu, 2006-09-18 am 12:10 -0700, ysgrifennodd Vara Prasad: > I am not sure i quiet understand your line number part of the proposal. > Does this proposal assume we have access to source code while generating > dynamic probes?
Its one route - or we dump it into an ELF section in the binary.
> This still doesn't solve the problem of compiler optimizing such that a > variable i would like to read in my probe not being available at the > probe point.
Then what we really need by the sound of it is enough gcc smarts to do something of the form
.section "debugbits"
.asciiz 'hook_sched' .dword l1 # Address to probe .word 1 # Argument count .dword gcc_magic_whatregister("next"); [ reg num or memory ] .dword gcc_magic_whataddress("next"); [ address if exists]
Can gcc do any of that for us today ?
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |