On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Doug Evans <dje@google.com> wrote:
[One might think why not just add printf (and whatever else) to
tracepoints and leave it at that. Tracepoints to me convey a specific
use-case and I'm not sure we should muddy that up. But for now I
suppose printf could be sufficiently useful, so I'm not opposed to the
patch (pragmatic hacks are sometimes useful enough to justify their
existence). This is not an approval though. I can see the patch
needs at least a few changes, but before reviewing it I'd like to make
sure there is general agreement on this approach. Someone else is
free to review and approve it of course.]
I haven't heard comments from any other GMs.
Does anyone have a problem with adding some kind of printf to tracepoints?
Or does anyone have a problem with adding a new kind of command list
to breakpoints that is executed on the target?
[P.S. If you respond, IWBN to include your thoughts on why.]
I'm inclined to go with having some kind of printf in tracepoints for now.