Francis Deslauriers added the comment: I am finally having the time to work in this.
> A nit: the name LTTng-UST is rather unfriendly, especially when used without > the dash and in all lowercase characters. Given that we're using "dtrace" and > "systemtap", it would be simpler to just use "lttng" (drop the "-ust"). We can certainly drop the "-ust" and have the name in lowercase. > It's impossible to have DTrace and SystemTap at the same time, so it was > natural to choose to auto-detect the engine. With LTTng it becomes less > obvious what the configure options should be. > Should it be possible at all to have *both* LTTng and SystemTap compiled in > at the same time? Does this make sense? It's possible to have both SystemTap and LTTng in the same binary. LTTng-UST has a configure option `--with-sdt` to include a SystemTap SDT probe alongside each LTTng-UST tracepoint. I don't have a specific usecase in mind but I can picture a setup where a binary is instrumented with both frameworks and the users either decide to use the low overhead tracing of LTTng or the versatile runtime aggregation of SystemTap depending on the problem they are trying to diagnose. So I think keeping both configure options makes sense. > Do you get unused code warnings without your patch applied? I don't. I am getting those errors too on Linux with GCC. I will make sure to fix them in the next round. I am currently working on the tests and documentation and I hope to submit patches for review early next week. Thank you, Francis ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue28909> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
