From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17458 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2010 17:43:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 17147 invoked by uid 48); 28 Apr 2010 17:43:06 -0000 Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:35:00 -0000 From: "jkenisto at us dot ibm dot com" To: systemtap@sources.redhat.com Message-ID: <20100428174306.11553.jkenisto@us.ibm.com> Reply-To: sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug translator/11553] New: need better message for return probe on inline function X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo 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: 2010-q2/txt/msg00228.txt.bz2 If I request a .return probe on a function that the compiler decides to inline, the error message I get is something like this: semantic error: no match while resolving probe point process("./a.out").function("inc").return ... which is technically true, but not as helpful as it could be. It'd be nice if you could add something like: (This function is inlined, so no return probe is possible.) It is indeed documented that you can't have return probes on inline functions; but have pity on the novice user, who may not be aware of this limitation and/or gcc's penchant for inlining functions -- even those you've explicitly asked it not to inline. -- Summary: need better message for return probe on inline function Product: systemtap Version: unspecified Status: NEW Severity: normal 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=11553 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.