Re: Implementing a generic binary trace interface.

["Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>]

Hi -

jrs wrote:

> [...]  I wonder, would local arrays be less misleading in your
> opinion.  If the array could contain multiple types and be use as
> both an argument and return value, this would also work for tracing.
> The use of arrays does seem to better fit the SystemTap coding
> style.

Yes, that would be another way, but then it would be hard to provide
the same degree of efficiency (no data copying, no index lookups,
etc.)  as the other solutions.


> [...] Printf is the current mechanism that is used in LKET.  While
> it works, I am finding the code does not look a clean as it could
> with a better interface.  BTI does offer nice interface that is very
> easy to decode and easy to implement.  Then new gBTI is better, but
> still somewhat not as flexible to the any type of data that we may
> want to put.

We can keep separate the low-level C API that is ultimately used to
send trace records forth, and the script-level constructs that will
invoke them.  The translator should be able to map between reasonable
pairs.  I hope to nudge the script side toward harmony with the rest
of the language.

- FChE