Em Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 04:55:13PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
quoted text
> On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 04:28 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 03:14:43PM -0400, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > > Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > > > If you find that a problem then you can do like SystemTap does and allow
> > > > '.' in place of '->'. In the code you already use the
> > > > perf_probe_arg_field ref flag only to check that the DIE gives you the
> > > > same information. So you could just drop that and use any separator.
> > > > Then you decide based on whether you see a DW_TAG_pointer_type. This
> > > > gives the user some extra flexibility by letting them not having to care
> > > > about specifying extra type information already available elsewhere.

quoted text
> > > Thanks, when designing this feature, I considered it too.

quoted text
> > > Since perf probe already support displaying source code by --line option,
> > > users will read the probed code itself and try to probe it. In that case,
> > > I think they naturally use '.' and '->' as they read (they might try to
> > > copy & paste it).

quoted text
> > > So, I think that it would be good to support both of '.' and '->' as
> > > they are used in the code, because it will not confuse users.

quoted text
> > And lets people use what is common for them: expressions that follow
> > C rules in the context.

quoted text
> > And those who will be more familiar with perf probe will know they can
> > use the simplified "." based scheme.

quoted text
> I'd expect a syntax error when I mix up '.' and '->'.

Yup, I'd stick with following the C language rules.

- Arnaldo
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/