"Edward Peschko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> wrt the below, I was giving it some thought, and was wondering how
> usable the gcc lexer/parser combo was by itself, how 'pluggable' it
> was - my hope was that I could take the lexer/parser and instead of
> making an executable out of the incoming c
ok,
wrt the below, I was giving it some thought, and was wondering how
usable the gcc lexer/parser combo was by itself, how 'pluggable' it
was - my hope was that I could take the lexer/parser and instead of
making an executable out of the incoming code, I could transform the
code in place, ie: add
Richard,
Thanks for the info... I'll try it out - I'm assuming that what you
get out of this is very similar to what you get out of dtrace when you
instrument a pid on entry and return.. Having a full trace is very
helpful in tracking things down.
I'd like to go further in c code even than what I
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:18 AM, wuxi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> have a look at the flag -finstrument-functions for gcc.
>
> as far as I know, this could only record at function entry and return ?
>
> but sometimes recording all the "trace" of how program behaves i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
have a look at the flag -finstrument-functions for gcc.
as far as I know, this could only record at function entry and return ?
but sometimes recording all the "trace" of how program behaves is useful
for debugging purpose.
further, using a binary instrumentation too
> What I'd prefer is a compiler flag that does basically the same thing,
> ie: puts hooks in the code such that after each step, a special, user
> defined function is called which takes as an argument the relevant
> source code that is to be executed (and whether or not a subroutine is
> being exit
