From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23754 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2006 19:38:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 23747 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Dec 2006 19:38:30 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS 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; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 19:38:24 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kBBJcMTg001725; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:38:22 -0500 Received: from pobox.toronto.redhat.com (pobox.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.4]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id kBBJcMJA028220; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:38:22 -0500 Received: from touchme.toronto.redhat.com (IDENT:postfix@touchme.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.9]) by pobox.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kBBJcLtN008387; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:38:21 -0500 Received: from ton.toronto.redhat.com (ton.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.15]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ABF7800005; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:38:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ton.toronto.redhat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ton.toronto.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id kBBJcLZn028825; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:38:21 -0500 Received: (from fche@localhost) by ton.toronto.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id kBBJcLB9028824; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:38:21 -0500 Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:04:00 -0000 From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" To: "Stone, Joshua I" Cc: systemtap@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Order "begin" probes are run Message-ID: <20061211193821.GC6726@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-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-q4/txt/msg00655.txt.bz2 Hi - On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 11:29:37AM -0800, Stone, Joshua I wrote: > [...] > Ok. I checked in code on Friday to move to C-style initialization, and > I think my changes made this ordering problem better as well [...] Thanks. > This would be fine if our numbers were always signed, but we have a > bit of schizophrenia in that regard. [...] Yes, this is a good point. In other tools in a similar context, we ended up letting numeric operands span from the negative signed limit (-2**63+1) to the positive unsigned limit (2**64-1). Shall we? For a small extra bribe, -2**63 could be fine too. But let's reject numbers outside that range. - FChE