On Wednesday, November 29, 2006 1:57 PM, Stone, Joshua I wrote:
On Wednesday, November 29, 2006 1:23 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
Mike Mason <mmlnx@us.ibm.com> writes:
Seems reasonable to expect tapset "begin" probes to always run
before a script's "begin" probe. [...]
One might also imagine cases where it could work the other way.
We could solve this by parametrizing: adding a sequence parameter to
"probe begin(N)" (and "end(M)"), and sorting them. Easy to
implement.
This is a nice idea -- if you make the default priority zero for those
who don't specify it, then things can "just work". Users can write an
unparameterized 'begin' as usual, and the tapset writer can initialize
in a 'begin(-1)' -- or 'begin(-2^63)' if paranoia kicks in...
This is now implemented -- you can give a numeric parameter to begin/end
probes, and they will execute in increasing order. The sequence number
if left out is effectively zero.