> Would this hack work: have the second utrace engine refuse to put a > breakpoint wherever it suspects another engine may have put one?
Sure, it's easy to notice the breakpoint instruction already there. > 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.) Yes, it can (UTRACE_ATTACH_EXCLUSIVE). Thanks, Roland
