From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27524 invoked by alias); 7 Feb 2011 18:41:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact archer-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Sender: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Received: (qmail 27514 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Feb 2011 18:41:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Roland McGrath To: Tom Tromey Cc: Project Archer Subject: Re: systemtap markers and gdb In-Reply-To: Tom Tromey's message of Monday, 7 February 2011 08:22:24 -0700 References: <20110113171524.143B7403EB@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20110204234515.1A0071801CF@magilla.sf.frob.com> Message-Id: <20110207184152.866E51800E3@magilla.sf.frob.com> Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 18:41:00 -0000 X-SW-Source: 2011-q1/txt/msg00033.txt.bz2 > I forget why we picked "marker" in the first place. I don't mind > changing it. Systemtap docs seem to use them interchangeably. I think it has to do with the history of similar features, which started in the kernel variant of the implementation of the essentially similar scheme. The first such thing the kernel had was called "markers", though the one now in use there is called "tracepoints" (an unfortunate parallel invention of the same term already used for something quite different in gdb). Anyway, the aversion to the name "marker" is just my opinion. You should probably work out with Frank what the preferred terminology really is. Thanks, Roland