Hi - On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 01:42:29AM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> [...] The future non-signal mechanism I described there can have a > reporting interface [...] The other part of the problem is > insertion/removal. Naive non-cooperation works if they literally > nest, but not if removal order is not LIFO. I don't have any > implicit-communication solution for that off hand. Yeah, this is roughly why we pointed out some time back that the utrace layer would be well situated to provide a high-level breakpoint-related API. What do you suggest in the interim? Would this hack work: have the second utrace engine refuse to put a breakpoint wherever it suspects another engine may have put one? Or even more pessimistically, can an engine know that another one is already monitoring a given target process, and give up at attach time? (That would defeat some of the promise of utrace, but so it goes.) - FChE
pgpjU12ZdAqHu.pgp
Description: PGP signature