This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@redhat.com> writes: > On Wednesday, October 08 2014, Doug Evans wrote: > >> Regarding: >>> # catch syscalls write, read, chdir, and groups network and signal >>> (gdb) catch syscall write read chdir -g network,signal >>> # or maybe without comma-separated values for groups, to keep consistency >>> (gdb) catch syscall write read chdir -g network signal >> >> I dislike "network,signal" if we don't also accept "read,write". I >> gather the comma is there to remove ambiguity as to what "-g network >> signal" means. > > Yeah. > >> I also kinda dislike interpreting "-g" to mean all remaining arguments >> (for a few reasons). > > Since there are very few groups (compared to syscalls names), I also > thought that "-g" could be used multiple times, like: > > (gdb) catch syscall -g network -g signal > > But... Doug and Sergio, Thank you for your review and valuable suggestions. The suggestion I feel more comfortable with is using -g for each syscall group. I agree that syscall groups should be treated on a different namespace than syscall names, which are the expected argument for a command called "catch syscall". >> How about appending "-group" or some such to group names? > > Hm, it seems OK, but I am thinking about one specific syscall that might > make things confusing here: exit_group(2). Consider: > > (gdb) catch syscall signal-group exit_group > > This can be very confusing for the user. > >> [I don't want to have too long a discussion or be too picky. >> OTOH I also don't want to just pick something and then regret it.] > > Yeah, I understand your reasons. > > Along the lines of your proposal above, I guess we can add a "g:" prefix > to group names: > > (gdb) catch syscall read chdir g:network g:signal signal > > WDYT? I dislike the proposal of adding prefixes/suffixes to the group names because I feel it might be harder to type, and also because it feels a little unusual, if we consider the common way of providing arguments to commands. Using -g to specify syscall groups, as Sergio said, has also the advantage of providing us with an intuitive command to list available syscall groups, by saying "catch syscall -g" with no arguments. So, my vote goes to using '-g' for each syscall group we want to catch. Is that ok for you, guys? I will still wait a few days to see if anyone has more suggestions before sending the updated patch that fixes the syntax and the other things you guys pointed out. Thanks! -- Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
Attachment:
pgpbXaqAyAlu9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |