[Bug translator/3671] New: Support array size declarations

[Bug translator/3671] New: Support array size declarations

[mmlnx at us dot ibm dot com]

Forcing every array be MAXMAPENTRIES in size is too restrictive and wasteful. 
If I know ahead of time how many elements I need I should be able to declare an
array of that size.  Right now if I need a mix of small and large arrays, I must
make sure MAXMAPENTRIES can accomodate the largest size needed, forcing all
arrays to be that size.

I realize this has been considered and may be difficult to implement. I still
think it's important to fix.  I ended up implementing some arrays in embedded C
in the socket tapset for this very reason (trying to keep the size down), not a
practice we want to encourage for script writers.

-- 
           Summary: Support array size declarations
           Product: systemtap
           Version: unspecified
            Status: NEW
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P2
         Component: translator
        AssignedTo: systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com
        ReportedBy: mmlnx at us dot ibm dot com


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3671

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

[Bug translator/3671] Support array size declarations

[fche at redhat dot com]

------- Additional Comments From fche at redhat dot com  2006-12-06 23:44 -------
What has been holding us back is the lack of a proposed syntax.
OK, here is a simple and intuitive one:

  global array[size]

Of course, this [size] usage may look different from actual key-tuple-based
indexing, but I suspect this would be OK.

It would be easy to implement.  The vardecl class would have to get a
maxsize field.  The parser::parse_global function would have to look for
[literal_number] set the field.  Last, the translator would have to arrange
to pass the new field to mapvar::init.

-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3671

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

Re: [Bug translator/3671] Support array size declarations

[Vara Prasad]

fche at redhat dot com wrote:

>------- Additional Comments From fche at redhat dot com  2006-12-06 23:44 -------
>What has been holding us back is the lack of a proposed syntax.
>OK, here is a simple and intuitive one:
>
>  global array[size]
>  
>
This sounds fine and of course specifying the size is optional and we 
will continue to support current syntax.


[snip]

[Bug translator/3671] Support array size declarations

[prasadav at us dot ibm dot com]

------- Additional Comments From prasadav at us dot ibm dot com  2006-12-06 23:51 -------
Subject: Re:  Support array size declarations

fche at redhat dot com wrote:

>------- Additional Comments From fche at redhat dot com  2006-12-06 23:44 -------
>What has been holding us back is the lack of a proposed syntax.
>OK, here is a simple and intuitive one:
>
>  global array[size]
>  
>
This sounds fine and of course specifying the size is optional and we 
will continue to support current syntax.


[snip]



-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3671

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

[Bug translator/3671] Support array size declarations

[joshua dot i dot stone at intel dot com]

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|systemtap at sources dot    |joshua dot i dot stone at
                   |redhat dot com              |intel dot com
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3671

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.