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]

PING: Re: [PATCH]tracepoint.c: Add conditionals num to find_matching_tracepoint


Thanks,
Hui

On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 21:40, Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 07:02, Stan Shebs <stanshebs@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On 8/7/11 9:28 AM, Hui Zhu wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I found that when I set some tracepoint to a same address, and use
>>> tsave. ? And use "target tfile " to open it. ?It will only one
>>> tracepoint available.
>>> And output some words like:
>>> Created tracepoint 1 for target's tracepoint 1 at 0x40050a.
>>> Assuming tracepoint 1 is same as target's tracepoint 2 at 0x40050a.
>>> Assuming tracepoint 1 is same as target's tracepoint 3 at 0x40050a.
>>>
>>> This is because find_matching_tracepoint didn't check the num.
>>
>>
>> The number is exactly the one property that tracepoint upload must never
>> consider when looking for matching tracepoints, since the numbers vary
>> depending on what the user has been doing during the current GDB session.
>> ?Addressing the FIXME will help the multiple-tracepoint case, although it's
>> kind of messy.
>>
>> There is another useful heuristic that would be easy to add, which is to
>> exclude matching on a tracepoint that has already been uploaded. ?Having
>> created tracepoint 1 from the uploaded info, it's never going to be the case
>> that uploaded tracepoints 2 and 3 are the same as 1. ?It might be as simple
>> as testing number_on_target, but beware that it might be nonzero due to
>> other trace runs or some such.
>>
>> Stan
>> stan@codesourcery.com
>>
>>>
>>> And I think the tracepoint have the same address is really helpful for
>>> user. ?Because we can set different condition to make tracepoint more
>>> powerful.
>>> So I make following patch.
>>>
>>> Please help me review it.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Hui
>>>
>>>
>>> 2011-08-08 ?Hui Zhu<teawater@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> ? ? ? ?* tracepoint.c (find_matching_tracepoint): Add number check.
>>
>>
>
> Hi Stan,
>
> Thanks for your review.
>
> I make a new patch that check the condition according to your mail.
>
> Best,
> Hui
>
> 2011-08-14 ?Hui Zhu ?<teawater@gmail.com>
>
> ? ? ? ?* tracepoint.c (cond_string_is_same): New function.
> ? ? ? ?(find_matching_tracepoint): Add condition check
> ? ? ? ?by cond_string_is_same.
> ---
> ?tracepoint.c | ? 19 ++++++++++++++++++-
> ?1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- a/tracepoint.c
> +++ b/tracepoint.c
> @@ -3091,6 +3091,22 @@ free_uploaded_tsvs (struct uploaded_tsv
> ? ? }
> ?}
>
> +static int
> +cond_string_is_same(char *str1, char *str2)
> +{
> + ?if (str1 == NULL || str2 == NULL)
> + ? ?{
> + ? ? ?if (str1 == str2)
> + ? ? ? return 1;
> + ? ? ?else
> + ? ? ? return 0;
> + ? ?}
> + ?if (strcmp (str1, str2))
> + ? ?return 0;
> +
> + ?return 1;
> +}
> +
> ?/* Look for an existing tracepoint that seems similar enough to the
> ? ?uploaded one. ?Enablement isn't compared, because the user can
> ? ?toggle that freely, and may have done so in anticipation of the
> @@ -3111,7 +3127,8 @@ find_matching_tracepoint (struct uploade
> ? ? ? if (b->type == utp->type
> ? ? ? ? ?&& t->step_count == utp->step
> ? ? ? ? ?&& t->pass_count == utp->pass
> - ? ? ? ? /* FIXME also test conditionals and actions. ?*/
> + ? ? ? ? && cond_string_is_same (t->base.cond_string, utp->cond_string)
> + ? ? ? ? /* FIXME also test actions. ?*/
> ? ? ? ? ?)
> ? ? ? ?{
> ? ? ? ? ?/* Scan the locations for an address match. ?*/
>


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]