Re: gdbserver tracepoint support (from Project Ideas page)

[Michael Snyder <msnyder at specifix dot com>]

On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 16:19 -0800, Doug Evans wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Michael Snyder <msnyder@specifix.com> wrote:
> >  > Can anyone give me an idea of what they think this involves, and if
> >  > any work has been done on this since the wiki entry was written?
> >
> >
> >  What work it involves --
> >  1) First gdbserver must understand the extra set of
> >  tracepoint remote protocol commands (or a subset of them:
> >  tracepoint support is very subset-able).  I'm sure these
> >  commands are documented somewhere...
> >  2) Then gdbserver has to know how to implement a tracepoint,
> >  ie. to stop the child, quickly collect a well defined set of
> >  data into a cache, then continue the child without any
> >  interaction with gdb.
> >
> >  AFAIK no one has worked on it in a while.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Another question.  While there mightn't be much benefit to
> implementing tracepoints natively as far speed of data collection is
> concerned, having a consistent u/i and capabilities native vs remote
> might be reasons to warrant a native implementation.  Anyone have any
> thoughts on a native implementation?

When you say "[not] much benefit to implementing tracepoints 
natively", do you mean "as opposed to just using gdbserver
or equivalent"?

I've given thought to the issue, and I think Jim Blandy has 
as well.  Not enough thought to make a very complete picture...

I think it would be useful, but then, I've always thought
tracepoints would find more use than they seem to have in
practice...