* [Bug translator/10830] new pp() variant for source-level probe point name
2009-10-22 16:29 [Bug translator/10830] New: new pp() variant for source-level probe point name fche at redhat dot com
@ 2009-10-22 17:58 ` jistone at redhat dot com
2009-10-22 18:05 ` jistone at redhat dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: jistone at redhat dot com @ 2009-10-22 17:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
------- Additional Comments From jistone at redhat dot com 2009-10-22 17:57 -------
(In reply to comment #0)
> One problem is that the current rewriting machinery
> (sdt_query::handle_query_module) creates a synthetic probe that maintains
> no relationship to the original one. If it created an alias_derived_probe,
> then at least a aliaswise derivation chain would be preserved.
I mentioned this issue in bug #10788 comment #1 too. I'm going to file a
separate bug to address this.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10830
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug translator/10830] new pp() variant for source-level probe point name
2009-10-22 16:29 [Bug translator/10830] New: new pp() variant for source-level probe point name fche at redhat dot com
2009-10-22 17:58 ` [Bug translator/10830] " jistone at redhat dot com
@ 2009-10-22 18:05 ` jistone at redhat dot com
2010-01-18 20:16 ` fche at redhat dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: jistone at redhat dot com @ 2009-10-22 18:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BugsThisDependsOn| |10831
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10830
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug translator/10830] new pp() variant for source-level probe point name
2009-10-22 16:29 [Bug translator/10830] New: new pp() variant for source-level probe point name fche at redhat dot com
2009-10-22 17:58 ` [Bug translator/10830] " jistone at redhat dot com
2009-10-22 18:05 ` jistone at redhat dot com
@ 2010-01-18 20:16 ` fche at redhat dot com
2010-03-16 18:20 ` jistone at redhat dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: fche at redhat dot com @ 2010-01-18 20:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO| |11179
nThis| |
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10830
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug translator/10830] new pp() variant for source-level probe point name
2009-10-22 16:29 [Bug translator/10830] New: new pp() variant for source-level probe point name fche at redhat dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2010-01-18 20:16 ` fche at redhat dot com
@ 2010-03-16 18:20 ` jistone at redhat dot com
2010-06-23 11:43 ` jistone at redhat dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: jistone at redhat dot com @ 2010-03-16 18:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
--
Bug 10830 depends on bug 10831, which changed state.
Bug 10831 Summary: Preserve the derivation chain for sdt and label probes
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10831
What |Old Value |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10830
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug translator/10830] new pp() variant for source-level probe point name
2009-10-22 16:29 [Bug translator/10830] New: new pp() variant for source-level probe point name fche at redhat dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2010-03-16 18:20 ` jistone at redhat dot com
@ 2010-06-23 11:43 ` jistone at redhat dot com
2010-06-23 16:43 ` mjw at redhat dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: jistone at redhat dot com @ 2010-06-23 11:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
------- Additional Comments From jistone at redhat dot com 2010-06-23 05:06 -------
commit 2d76777
(I'm not sure I like the name pp1(), but no alternative came to mind...)
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10830
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug translator/10830] new pp() variant for source-level probe point name
2009-10-22 16:29 [Bug translator/10830] New: new pp() variant for source-level probe point name fche at redhat dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2010-06-23 11:43 ` jistone at redhat dot com
@ 2010-06-23 16:43 ` mjw at redhat dot com
2010-06-23 23:09 ` przemyslaw at pawelczyk dot it
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: mjw at redhat dot com @ 2010-06-23 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
------- Additional Comments From mjw at redhat dot com 2010-06-23 07:42 -------
On Wed, 2010-06-23 at 05:06 +0000, jistone at redhat dot com wrote:
------- Additional Comments From jistone at redhat dot com 2010-06-23 05:06 -------
> commit 2d76777
>
> (I'm not sure I like the name pp1(), but no alternative came to mind...)
>
pp1() is pretty obscure.
What about pn() for probe-name (where pp() is for probe-point)?
Cheers,
Mark
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10830
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug translator/10830] new pp() variant for source-level probe point name
2009-10-22 16:29 [Bug translator/10830] New: new pp() variant for source-level probe point name fche at redhat dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2010-06-23 16:43 ` mjw at redhat dot com
@ 2010-06-23 23:09 ` przemyslaw at pawelczyk dot it
2010-06-24 7:10 ` fche at redhat dot com
2010-06-24 18:47 ` jistone at redhat dot com
8 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: przemyslaw at pawelczyk dot it @ 2010-06-23 23:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
------- Additional Comments From przemyslaw at pawelczyk dot it 2010-06-23 10:22 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> pp1() is pretty obscure.
Agree.
> What about pn() for probe-name (where pp() is for probe-point)?
Sound better than "pretty please" or "people", but can be misleading.
After all the name of the probe alias is returned here.
I suggest following renames:
pp() -> ppname()
ppl() -> paname()
and leaving pp() as (deprecated) alias for new name (backward compatibility or
maybe only via --compatible).
Yes, new names would be more verbose, but also more clean IMHO. What do you
think?
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10830
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug translator/10830] new pp() variant for source-level probe point name
2009-10-22 16:29 [Bug translator/10830] New: new pp() variant for source-level probe point name fche at redhat dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2010-06-23 23:09 ` przemyslaw at pawelczyk dot it
@ 2010-06-24 7:10 ` fche at redhat dot com
2010-06-24 18:47 ` jistone at redhat dot com
8 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: fche at redhat dot com @ 2010-06-24 7:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
------- Additional Comments From fche at redhat dot com 2010-06-23 11:42 -------
I'm not too keen on verbosifying the function names, nor
deprecating one of the most used tapset functions (pp()).
One other possibility is to permit and use tapset function
overloading: pp()==pp(0) pp1 to become pp(1). This would
also be useful for PR11679.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10830
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug translator/10830] new pp() variant for source-level probe point name
2009-10-22 16:29 [Bug translator/10830] New: new pp() variant for source-level probe point name fche at redhat dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2010-06-24 7:10 ` fche at redhat dot com
@ 2010-06-24 18:47 ` jistone at redhat dot com
8 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: jistone at redhat dot com @ 2010-06-24 18:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
------- Additional Comments From jistone at redhat dot com 2010-06-23 23:08 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> What about pn() for probe-name (where pp() is for probe-point)?
I like this... commit d48df0c
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10830
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread