This is the mail archive of the systemtap@sourceware.org mailing list for the systemtap project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Does This Probe Make Sense?

From: Josh Stone <jistone at redhat dot com>
To: Mark Wielaard <mjw at redhat dot com>
Cc: Dave Brolley <brolley at redhat dot com>, systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 09:26:40 -0700
Subject: Re: Does This Probe Make Sense?
References: <4E5D03D3.4010208@redhat.com> <4E5D11FC.8060009@redhat.com> <1315321500.3895.41.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>

On 09/06/2011 08:04 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>> So IMO, get rid of the .function(NUM).inline binding, and make sure that
>> addresses in an inline still reach out to the containing .call.
> 
> What do you mean by that last statement about "reach out"?

Perhaps "reach up" would have been better, as in up the die hierarchy. I
meant that given an address within an inline instance, we should still
get a probe on the containing function.

Josh

References:
- Does This Probe Make Sense?
  - From: Dave Brolley
- Re: Does This Probe Make Sense?
  - From: Josh Stone
- Re: Does This Probe Make Sense?
  - From: Mark Wielaard

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]