From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2794 invoked by alias); 12 Mar 2012 19:59:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 2786 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Mar 2012 19:59:25 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:59:06 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2CJx4cc006560 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:59:04 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2CJx3tJ005585 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:59:03 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Sergio Durigan Junior , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Implement support for SystemTap probes on userspace References: <83haxwzy92.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:59:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <83haxwzy92.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 10 Mar 2012 09:55:05 +0200") Message-ID: <87sjhdoak9.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.94 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-03/txt/msg00414.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii writes: Eli> May I suggest that the new command be called "info stap-probes" Eli> instead? IMO, "probe" is much too general, and may conflict in the Eli> future with some other feature that uses similar facilities or Eli> terminology. I think this change would make it seem like these probe points are somehow less generic than UST static markers from the gdb point of view -- but they are not, in fact they are more generic because they aren't restricted to just being used in tracepoints. We did look at unifying the support between UST and sdt.h probes, but this seemed not very doable. Tom