From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11759 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2005 20:55:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 11753 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Dec 2005 20:55:41 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Dec 2005 20:55:40 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id jB6Ktcj7029225 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 15:55:38 -0500 Received: from pobox.toronto.redhat.com (pobox.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.4]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jB6KtcV29169; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 15:55:38 -0500 Received: from touchme.toronto.redhat.com (IDENT:postfix@touchme.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.9]) by pobox.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jB6Ktcbs007539; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 15:55:38 -0500 Received: from tooth.toronto.redhat.com (tooth.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.29]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2E1080032B; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 15:55:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from tooth.toronto.redhat.com (IDENT:eo5u225BUnIXlqv46Se/O2O2h0qloI9h@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tooth.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jB6KtbuI017794; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 15:55:37 -0500 Received: (from fche@localhost) by tooth.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id jB6KtbdN017792; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 15:55:37 -0500 Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 20:55:00 -0000 From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" To: "Stone, Joshua I" Cc: systemtap@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MAXACTION exceeded error while using systemtap Message-ID: <20051206205537.GD9617@redhat.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-q4/txt/msg00354.txt.bz2 Hi - > > See http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1866 > > This bug was dismissed as being "behavior as designed" - but I think it > is worth questioning the design. [...] Bug #1866 links to #1884, which does that. > At the very least, we should have something along the Dtrace's printa(): > [...] Bug #1121 seems applicable to this problem [...] The print/printf routines have worked for a few weeks now. I don't know whether Graydon intends to extend them to print arrays also. The new print code also makes more compact the elaborate reporting routines used thus far, and importantly, rather reduces their statement count. I am unsure about how to estimate the very real cost of an array-print operator. Calling it approximately zero would make it into a something like a DoS vector. Intuitively, it should be proportional to the amount of output generated, so it relates to bug #1885. - FChE