This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Archer project.
Re: 'catch syscall' Status
- From: Sérgio Durigan Júnior <sergiodj at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Project Archer <archer at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 19:54:09 -0300
- Subject: Re: 'catch syscall' Status
- Organization: LTC - IBM
- References: <1218033673.5825.4.camel@miki> <4899CB72.email@example.com>
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 , 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
> This is a feature I have been looking forward too for a long time, so
> glad to see it being thought about/worked on.
Sérgio Durigan Júnior
Linux on Power Toolchain - Software Engineer
Linux Technology Center - LTC