|
From: Geoff S. <gs...@us...> - 2006-02-24 09:03:41
|
> > I would like to send this request to maillist for an open discussion. > > > > Geoff Smith proposed an idea about Instruction Trace at > > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=14760370 > > and I would like to explain and advocate his proposal. > > It seems to me that lackey does already a lot of it, especially with > the --trace-mem=yes option in Valgrind SVN (or was this already in > 3.1? "--help" does not talk about it). > > Perhaps it is a better idea to add the missing things to lackey? > AFAICS things missing in lackey wrt itrace: > - print PC together with memory accesses (--trace-instr=yes) > - enable detailed access trace only for some function(s) If lackey actually does -trace-mem, simply adding -trace-instr seems like a natural. We actually used lackey as the model for the itrace tool. I can think of a couple reasons not to monkey with lackey: a.) lackey's ouput is completely oriented toward generating a summary (at least if you only consider documented options <g>); b.) don't want to gum up the "model" tool The only serious qualm I might have with --trace-instr is that we'd like to keep the output both terse (small) and easily parsable. Ideally, you could write an awk script to do simple analysis. (I haven't seen any trace-mem sample output yet, I should get a chance in the morning.) |