Re: user instruction tracing patch?

[Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>]

> Well, Frank's syntax is prettier in this example.  I had assumed that
> Roland's approach included some way to name a probe, so that the enable
> statement/function could use that instead of the explicit probe
> specification.

I wasn't specific about the real syntax, but I did expect something like
that.  My point really was not about the specificity of the identifier;
the points you bring up about that are good ones that I haven't addressed.
I was simply reacting to the idea of "changing any script variable can run
magic hooks" as opposed to more explicit syntax for magic hooks.


Thanks,
Roland