This is the mail archive of the systemtap@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the systemtap project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Hi - > [...] Seriously, I believe that this is a fundamental safety We > presumably won't crash any spacecraft, but we could crash a > customer's system. Dtrace doesn't have to worry about this so much > because the user is in a pretty tight straitjacket. Please be more specific. Having implicitly declared and typed systemtap variables poses a crash risk to the kernel how? > > [...] > > It seems to me that we are really missing only a few constructs: > > - referring to variables in target space > > - performing -> . [] on those pointer variables and related names > > Does something else very useful come to mind? > > & lvalue > * pointer > functions calls -- to three types of functions: > a) SystemTap auxiliary functions (as currently parsed) > b) C functions in the context of the probed function > c) C functions (set off by yacc/lex escapes such as %% or %{...%}) that > are copied from the .stp file to the module's .c file. That looks like way too generous. Can you provide motivation for each of these constructs as really useful/necessary to a systemtap user? They clearly toss the barn door wide open. - FChE
Attachment:
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |