This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Modify stap-probe.h to identify SystemTap probes
- From: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj at redhat dot com>
- To: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb at sourceware dot org
- Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 04:04:56 -0300
- Subject: Re: Modify stap-probe.h to identify SystemTap probes
- References: <20120504152129.GA7418@redhat.com> <m37gwrs0m6.fsf@redhat.com> <20120505060312.GA7019@host2.jankratochvil.net> <m3vckbqhsg.fsf@redhat.com> <20120505062315.GA7458@host2.jankratochvil.net> <m3r4uzqgcy.fsf_-_@redhat.com> <20120505065253.GA8272@host2.jankratochvil.net>
On Saturday, May 05 2012, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Sat, 05 May 2012 08:41:49 +0200, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 05 2012, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>> > If the current probe.h interface is insufficient then it should be extended.
>>
>> I agree, but that's not the case. `probe.h' is sufficient, but it is
>> not its responsibility to tell if a probe foo is a SystemTap probe.
>
> Why cannot probe XYZ serve the task a SystemTap probe does? The name
> "SystemTap" makes the probe somehow unique no other probe kind can be placed
> at the same address providing the same information?
Currently only SystemTap is implemented, and SystemTap userspace probes
can have arguments, but this may not be true for all types of probes
that will eventually be implemented. Also, and maybe most important,
only SystemTap probes are used inside glibc/libgcc for this purpose, so
allowing any probe type to be accepted in this case is not conceptually
right IMO.
If any other probe of any other type is included in glibc/libgcc for the
same purpose, it is easy to allow this type of probe in the code too.
--
Sergio