Hi,
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Gwe, 2006-09-15 am 13:46 +0200, ysgrifennodd Roman Zippel:
> > > That misses the entire point. If you have dynamic tracepoints you don't
> > > have any static tracepoints to maintain because you don't need them.
> >
> > This assumes dynamic tracepoints are generally available, which is wrong.
>
> Wrong in what sense, you don't have them implemented or your
> architecture is mindbogglingly braindead you can't implement them ?
>
> > This assumes that dynamic tracepoints can't benefit from static source
> > annotations, which is also wrong.
>
> gcc -g produces extensive annotations which are then usably by many
> tools other than gdb.
Both points have very strong consequences regarding complexity. Why do you
want to deny me the choice to use something simple, especially since both
solutions are not mutually exclusive and can even complement each other?
What's the point in forcing everyone to use a single solution?
bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
