tracepoint maintainance models
Vara Prasad
prasadav@us.ibm.com
Mon Sep 18 20:29:00 GMT 2006
Alan Cox wrote:
>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.
>
>
Source code access is not a good solution but ELF section could work.
>
>
>>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 ?
>
>
>
No, gcc doesn't do that today.
More information about the Systemtap
mailing list