From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14374 invoked by alias); 26 Aug 2010 15:40:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 14365 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Aug 2010 15:40:32 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:40:25 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o7QFeOSw024521 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:40:24 -0400 Received: from fche.csb (vpn-234-215.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.234.215]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o7QFeNZ6025830; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:40:23 -0400 Received: by fche.csb (Postfix, from userid 2569) id 4D96E5812F; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:40:20 -0400 (EDT) To: Josh Stone Cc: Roland McGrath , systemtap@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: semantic error: multiple addresses for ... References: <20100820203946.0169540144@magilla.sf.frob.com> <4C742200.7000401@redhat.com> <20100824195519.9C0D74048C@magilla.sf.frob.com> <4C742CE2.7070408@redhat.com> From: fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:40:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4C742CE2.7070408@redhat.com> (Josh Stone's message of "Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:34:42 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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-q3/txt/msg00303.txt.bz2 Josh Stone writes: > [...] > The funny thing is that the current rule is only applied for statement > probes on line numbers (see the use of need_single_match). Function > probes with line numbers are allowed to have duplicates, probably for > the exact reason you're complaining about, that there may be multiple > inline instances. That's because, for function probes, we hardly even look at the line numbers. We just want to identify some enclosing function into whose prologue the probe will be placed. - FChE