lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: tracepoint maintainance models
From
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-09-18 21:29    [W:0.778 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site