From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25576 invoked by alias); 30 Mar 2006 11:45:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 25566 invoked by uid 48); 30 Mar 2006 11:45:10 -0000 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 11:45:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060330114510.25564.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "fche at redhat dot com" To: systemtap@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20060330093952.2497.guanglei@cn.ibm.com> References: <20060330093952.2497.guanglei@cn.ibm.com> Reply-To: sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug runtime/2497] STP_STRING_SIZE set by stap is too small X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo 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: 2006-q1/txt/msg00895.txt.bz2 ------- Additional Comments From fche at redhat dot com 2006-03-30 11:45 ------- Any particular number constitutes a trade-off. What number would you propose, keeping in mind that all string instances (scalars, temporaries, array keys/values) are statically allocated and copied by value? The problem of long backtraces is already to some extent addressed by the print_backtrace() function. -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |WAITING http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2497 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.