This is the mail archive of the
systemtap@sourceware.org
mailing list for the systemtap project.
Re: is systemtap's language more complicated than needed.
"Stone, Joshua I" <joshua.i.stone@intel.com> writes:
> [...]
> > this change will make it much easier to read and create scripts for
> > the end user, especially if a function is inlined at some point in the
> > future.
>
> This is a strong point in your favor, for the maintainability of scripts
> and tapsets. And given that the compiler might also inline functions on
> its own, the function/inline distinction can be a real headache.
> [...]
Indeed, and resolving this problem had been recorded as the goal of
bug #1570. Indeed, the issue is complicated by tension between the
in-probability inline function returns and the compiler's propensity
to inline things.
> Perhaps we could implement what you suggest as a shorthand, but
> still leave the function/inline/statement variants in place to allow
> one to be explicit. [...]
Perhaps, though we would be saving just two tokens ("." and "function"
/ "statement" / ...) for each such shorthand use. Or one could save
typing effort by supporting explicit abbreviations like "k.stmt(...)"
for "kernel.statement(...)".
- FChE