From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24883 invoked by alias); 26 Oct 2006 01:07:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 24876 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Oct 2006 01:07:34 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:07:30 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k9Q17SBj014770 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:07:28 -0400 Received: from pobox.toronto.redhat.com (pobox.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.4]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k9Q17RaI005026; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:07:28 -0400 Received: from touchme.toronto.redhat.com (IDENT:postfix@touchme.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.9]) by pobox.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k9Q17RUj009133; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:07:27 -0400 Received: from ton.toronto.redhat.com (ton.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.15]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 677B2800002; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:07:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ton.toronto.redhat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ton.toronto.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k9Q17RGw008095; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:07:27 -0400 Received: (from fche@localhost) by ton.toronto.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id k9Q17QDA008092; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:07:26 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: ton.toronto.redhat.com: fche set sender to fche@redhat.com using -f To: "Stone, Joshua I" Cc: "David Smith" , Subject: Re: precompiled probing scenarios References: From: fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:07:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-q4/txt/msg00247.txt.bz2 "Stone, Joshua I" writes: > [...] > That's partly my point. Those pairings are functionally equivalent, > right? So why should the code we generate show any differences? > [...] > My hope is that someday the translator will also treat less obvious > cases like these as identical: [...] While none of these is a bad idea, I see little practical necessity for normalization. How many nearly-identical scripts do we ship? How many normalizably-identical scripts do people actually use? If the answer is "not many" or even "none", I wouldn't worry about it. - FChE