Re: RFC strace via gdbserver

2016-11-09 Thread Josh Stone
On 11/02/2016 11:54 AM, Stan Cox wrote: > >> Additionally, support for qualifying expressions (-e expr) and following >> children (-f) will be pushed soon. > -f and -e support has been added to the gdbserver remote protocol backend in > the strace branch at https://github.com:stanfordcox/strace

Re: RFC strace via gdbserver

2016-11-09 Thread Josh Stone
On 11/09/2016 11:47 AM, Stan Cox wrote: > >> Can you explain your -f changes? >> >> I see you're alternating QCatchSyscalls:1 or QCatchSyscalls:2 -- what >> are these values? Has this protocol change gone into gdb upstream, or >> just your own gdb branch? > Yes, it was just a local change. QCatc

Re: strace 4.15 released

2017-02-13 Thread Josh Stone
On 02/13/2017 08:47 AM, James Cowgill wrote: >> Is there any simple way for MIPS o32 userspace to find out whether >> the kernel is not a native MIPS o32? Something less hackish >> than manually invoking a MIPS n64 syscall? > > uname -m is a bit less hackish: > > 32-bit kernel: $(uname -m) = mip

RFC strace via gdbserver

2016-01-20 Thread Josh Stone
Hi, I've been experimenting with using strace via gdbserver, through the gdb remote protocol. It's now in good enough state that I'd like to get some feedback. First, syscall support in gdbserver is very new. There was a patch posted a few years ago by Philippe Waroquiers, but I only just finis

Re: RFC strace via gdbserver

2016-04-15 Thread Josh Stone
t may just be that some strace features won't be able to mix with this -G gdbserver mode. Anyway, work continues, and I hope people find this interesting. Thanks, Josh On 01/20/2016 12:10 PM, Josh Stone wrote: > Hi, > > I've been experimenting with using strace via gdbserve

Re: RFC strace via gdbserver

2016-04-17 Thread Josh Stone
On 04/17/2016 10:25 PM, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: >> Dmitry pointed out -P and -y path-based options before, which I haven't >> found a solution for. Technically /proc/pid/fd access will work just >> fine if the gdbserver is local anyway, but that's cheating, and can't be >> assumed in general. It m