RE: variables in scopes

["Chen, Brad" <brad dot chen at intel dot com>]

>I am not sure i understand ... 
Actually, I had forgotten how this thread began. The reason for
asking script writers to learn and use a new syntax wasn't for
safety, it was to obviate the need for a C syntax parser in the
script authoring environment. Sorry about that moment of 
confusion.

Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: Vara Prasad [mailto:prasadav@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 9:53 AM
To: Chen, Brad
Cc: Richard J Moore; Ulrich Drepper; Frank Ch. Eigler; Jim Keniston;
SystemTAP
Subject: Re: variables in scopes

I agree with your statement that tapset authors would like familiar "C" 
syntax but end users who write the scripts would like a simpler script 
kind of language. I think this difference is understandable due to 
different needs.
I am not sure i understand what you mean by  " we might sacrifice the 
convenience of C for something with better safety properties ". Are you 
suggesting a different language for end users if so what would that be 
and how it is going to achieve safety properties.

Chen, Brad wrote:

>One conclusion I'd draw from Richard and Vara's comments
>is that tapset authors would commonly reference kernel
>data structures and so would want familiar C syntax, but 
>script authors would not, and in that context we might 
>sacrifice the convenience of C for something with better 
>safety properties. Vara, Richard, do you agreee/disagree?
>
>Brad
>
>
>  
>
>>language. I think we should not forget that language role is to make
>>    
>>
>it
>  
>
>>easy to get what we want out of kernel. If we make this as a full
>>    
>>
>blown
>  
>
>>c language, then i see where little difference in writing systemtap
>>scripts vs kprobe modules.
>>
>>Just my 2 cents.
>>
>>bye,
>>Vara Prasad
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Richard Moore wrote ...
>  
>
>Agreed. If one wants the write probes in C then why use an interpretive
>form of C?
>Surely one would write kernel modules that would call the kprobes KPIs
>directly.
>
>
>  
>