From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Dec  7 20:08:05 1996
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id UAA24312
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 20:08:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cheops.anu.edu.au (avalon@cheops.anu.edu.au [150.203.76.24])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id UAA24288
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 20:08:00 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199612080408.UAA24288@freefall.freebsd.org>
Received: by cheops.anu.edu.au
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA273118056; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 15:07:36 +1100
From: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: truss, trace ??
To: sef@Kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 15:07:36 +1100 (EDT)
Cc: avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de,
        freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199612080338.TAA10302@kithrup.com> from "Sean Eric Fagan" at Dec 7, 96 07:38:52 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In some mail from Sean Eric Fagan, sie said:
> 
> >Whilst we have ktrace(2) which works with ktrace(1) and kdump(2), there is
> >no ptrace(2)
> 
> Uh... how do you think gdb talks to processes?  It uses ptrace().
> 
> Our ptrace is not sufficient to do syscall stops, though.  I have changes to
> procfs and the rest of the kernel that do allow it, however, and I've
> written an EP version of truss that uses it.

Are these going to be integrated into 3.0 ?

Darren