Re: variables in scopes

[Vara Prasad <prasadav at us dot ibm dot com>]

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.
>
>
>