> probe arbitrary statements in code symbolically (function entry, exit, > interior, source code co-ordinates): > yes (using debugging information) > > If that is true than they are a bit ahead in this area. I am really > missing it in dtrace. > Having this it would make dtrace user-land instrumentation even more powerful > as > It would allow to implement for example API monitor in few D lines. > > Are there any plans to implement it in dtrace?
We know that there are a few user-land improvements that would be nice to have (typing for example). I'm not completely sure what you would like to do though. Can you post an example? Jon. > Remek > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:14 AM, Rob Clark <rob1w...@aol.com> wrote: > >>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 09:33:42AM -0800, Rob Clark >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Summary comparing systemtap and dtrace >>>> http://sourceware.org/systemtap/wiki/SystemtapDtraceComparison >>>> It looks like we are ahead in a few spots also. >>>> >>> "We" being DTrace? >>> >> Yes. >> >> >>> That comparison is wrong or misleading in a number of areas. For >>> example: DTrace can instrument every instruction in user-land, whereas >>> that page says SystemTap can instrument "zillions (statements, >>> functions)" and DTrace only "millions (functions, markers)." >>> ... >>> >> It's a Wiki, please fix it. >> >> >>> ... >>> methinks that the number of operating systems to which DTrace has been >>> ported is proof that the level of such coupling is not "[a] lot." >>> >> If they have a feature that we do not then let us add it and be way ahead. >> >> Rob >> -- >> This message posted from opensolaris.org >> _______________________________________________ >> dtrace-discuss mailing list >> dtrace-discuss@opensolaris.org >> >> > _______________________________________________ > dtrace-discuss mailing list > dtrace-discuss@opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ dtrace-discuss mailing list dtrace-discuss@opensolaris.org
