Re: tracepoint maintainance models

[Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>]

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/