|
From: Josef W. <Jos...@gm...> - 2006-02-24 09:26:47
|
On Friday 24 February 2006 10:04, Geoff Smith wrote: > 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>); That seems to be already violated: IMHO, lackey is already advanced tutorial stuff about detecting memory accesses from VEX code. And summary vs. trace output makes not a huge difference for a valgrind tool example. I did not see the source if itrace yet, but a problem to integrate it with lackey would be if you have a lot of corner cases needing some special handling, which would make it a bad tutorial. > b.) don't want to gum up the > "model" tool Perhaps it would be a better idea to additionally have a really easy tool as tutorial; but perhaps this already is provided with the "none" tool? Another "model" I like to see is for how to make an external tool, which can be distributed separatly from VG source, with its own configure, using installed VG include files and linking to installed VG libs. > 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. Something like --trace-mem is probably always used for postprocessing. So easy parsing should be mandatory. I think that Nick added memory access tracing because this is kind of a FAQ, and people can use lackey as starting point (similar as you did). Josef |