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: Fwd: R.F.C. Should we abandon User-land probes?

From: Martin Hunt <hunt at redhat dot com>
To: James Dickens <jamesd dot wi at gmail dot com>
Cc: "systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com" <systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:15:12 -0700
Subject: Re: Fwd: R.F.C. Should we abandon User-land probes?
Organization: Red Hat Inc
References: <cd09bdd10510201115u5a8eebd8r65f64e60e3cfcbdb@mail.gmail.com> <y0m1x2g2f6t.fsf@toenail.toronto.redhat.com> <cd09bdd10510201208k5a862b23i5e915ee4e04f9560@mail.gmail.com> <20051020192356.GD2761@redhat.com> <cd09bdd10510201302i44a8a6fdy7f4cea33576bec0b@mail.gmail.com> <cd09bdd10510201306q73329ba7oc127075c1662d62e@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 15:06 -0500, James Dickens wrote:

>  yes those work fine in kernel code, since variables to access
> components of the structs/unions are allready availible for the
> systemtap code and tapsets, but that is not the case of userland,
> especially in the case of C++ classes/struct. So the user required to
> enable guru-mode.

Whatever gave you that idea?

Martin

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Fwd: R.F.C. Should we abandon User-land probes?
  - From: James Dickens

References:
- R.F.C. Should we abandon User-land probes?
  - From: James Dickens
- Re: R.F.C. Should we abandon User-land probes?
  - From: Frank Ch. Eigler
- Re: R.F.C. Should we abandon User-land probes?
  - From: James Dickens
- Fwd: R.F.C. Should we abandon User-land probes?
  - From: James Dickens

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