Citando Doug Evans <[email protected]>:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:55 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hello everyone, again,
>>
>> From what I've learned after reading GDB's excellent documentation, I know I
>> can set a memory trigger (i. e., a breakpoint that is set every time a
>> certain memory address changes) by setting a watchpoint at the desired
>> memory address (a practical example is available here:
>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/58851/can-i-set-a-breakpoint-on-memory-access-in-gdb).
>> The question I have now is if I can set a temporal breakpoint (i. e., a
>> breakpoint that is only triggered after a user-defined amount of time has
>> passed), in few words a breakpoint that is only fired after some kind of
>> timer has expired. I haven't found anything related to this on the GDB docs,
>> so I guess it's not possible, but they are huge and maybe I've missed
>> something, somewhere. If anyone can confirm or deny this deduction, it would
>> be great, because this feature is crucial to my work.
>
> Hi.
>
> There is no such thing, per se, but you might be able to approximate it
> by a breakpoint on a line of code that only triggers when the time
> has passed,
> or after the breakpoint is hit a certain number of times.
Hi Doug, thanks for your answer.
I know how I can set a breakpoint that only triggers after being hit a
certain number of times, but how I'd be able to set a breakpoint on a
line of code that only triggers after a certain time has passed? E.
g., are you referring about writng a little piece of code (in C, for
instance) executing something only after a timer manually set by
myself, in that same code? If that's it, in that case I don't know if
it will be possible, because I'm also using KGDB, and so I want the
lowest intrusion possible.
>
> I can also imagine a hack where you run a side program
> that sleeps for the specified period of time and it sends SIGUSR1
> (or whatever) to the inferior, and then have gdb catch SIGUSR1,
> do whatever you want at that time,
> and then resume the inferior (discarding the signal).
I'll investigate this solution, although I think I'll have the sma
intrusion problem (in the Linux kernel).
Thanks!
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.