[Bug translator/6826] New: shorthand or variable for probed executable's path

[Bug translator/6826] New: shorthand or variable for probed executable's path

[jkenisto at us dot ibm dot com]

Suppose the program I'm probing has a really long pathname, or at least one that
I'd rather not retype or copy&paste a lot.  Is there some way to arrange it so
every probe definition doesn't have to start with
  probe process("/a/really/long/pathname").whatever ...
?

BTW, I don't consider this a viable solution:
  probe process(@1).whatever ...
  stap xxx.stp /a/really/long/pathname

-- 
           Summary: shorthand or variable for probed executable's path
           Product: systemtap
           Version: unspecified
            Status: NEW
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P2
         Component: translator
        AssignedTo: systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com
        ReportedBy: jkenisto at us dot ibm dot com


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6826

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

[Bug translator/6826] shorthand or variable for probed executable's path

[joshua dot i dot stone at intel dot com]

------- Additional Comments From joshua dot i dot stone at intel dot com  2008-08-08 22:04 -------
Maybe the probe aliases could be expanded to allow incomplete names, something like:

  probe myproc.* = process("/a/really/long/pathname").*
  probe myproc.whatever { /* ... */ }

Or we could do this with preprocessor defines, which would also be useful in
other scenarios:

  %( define myproc process("/a/really/long/pathname") %)
  probe myproc.whatever { /* ... */ }


-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6826

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

[Bug translator/6826] shorthand or variable for probed executable's path

[fche at redhat dot com]

------- Additional Comments From fche at redhat dot com  2008-08-09 14:36 -------
Would it be sufficient to teach the translator to search in $PATH,
so that relative path names can be fully-qualified internally?


-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6826

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

[Bug translator/6826] shorthand or variable for probed executable's path

[fche at redhat dot com]

------- Additional Comments From fche at redhat dot com  2008-08-09 18:00 -------
Please see commit d0a7f5a.  Is that sufficient?

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |WAITING


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6826

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

[Bug translator/6826] shorthand or variable for probed executable's path

[fche at redhat dot com]

------- Additional Comments From fche at redhat dot com  2010-04-17 15:25 -------
With $PATH searching, this problem is assumed to be addressed adequately.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|WAITING                     |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6826

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