[Bug translator/10830] new pp() variant for source-level probe point name

[Bug translator/10830] new pp() variant for source-level probe point name

[fche at redhat dot com]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10830

Frank Ch. Eigler <fche at redhat dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|11179                       |

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug translator/10830] new pp() variant for source-level probe point name

[jistone at redhat dot com]

------- 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.

[Bug translator/10830] new pp() variant for source-level probe point name

[fche at redhat dot com]

------- 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.

[Bug translator/10830] new pp() variant for source-level probe point name

[przemyslaw at pawelczyk dot it]

------- 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.

[Bug translator/10830] new pp() variant for source-level probe point name

[mjw at redhat dot com]

------- 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.

[Bug translator/10830] new pp() variant for source-level probe point name

[jistone at redhat dot com]

------- 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.

[Bug translator/10830] new pp() variant for source-level probe point name

[jistone at redhat dot com]

-- 
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.

[Bug translator/10830] new pp() variant for source-level probe point name

[fche at redhat dot com]

-- 
           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.

[Bug translator/10830] new pp() variant for source-level probe point name

[jistone at redhat dot com]

-- 
           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.

[Bug translator/10830] new pp() variant for source-level probe point name

[jistone at redhat dot com]

------- 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.