|automatic hooks generation email@example.com (Roman Shaposhnick) (2002-11-07)|
|Re: automatic hooks generation firstname.lastname@example.org (Ira Baxter) (2002-11-08)|
|Re: automatic hooks generation email@example.com (Ralph Corderoy) (2002-12-01)|
|From:||"Ira Baxter" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||8 Nov 2002 11:03:18 -0500|
|Posted-Date:||08 Nov 2002 11:03:18 EST|
"Roman Shaposhnick" <email@example.com> wrote in message
> I'm looking for any suggestions on what would be the most easy way to
> implement something that is similar to "tracing" using existing
> compilers like gcc. <snip>
> What I'm looking for is a logical extension of these methods where I
> can ask compiler to put probes ( calls to a specific function ) at
> places like entry/exit from functions, etc.
> Once approach that I have in mind is a c2c translator, which is not
> an excellent option, given that it requires an extra step during a
> compilation process and is highly vulnerable to non-portable extensions
> implemented by FCC and many others.
See the white paper on how to implement test coverage using program
makes the additional rather obvious point that if you can insert test
coverage probes by program transformation, you can insert all kind of
other probes pretty easily. Yes, it uses what amounts to X2X
translator, with X replaced by the programming language of interest.
We've C test coverage this way.
Ira D. Baxter, Ph.D., CTO 512-250-1018
Semantic Designs, Inc. www.semdesigns.com
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.