Mirko Cetkovic wrote: > - mytestapp is compiled without any switch > > CC -o mytestapp mytestapp.cc
why are you using C++ compiler for a simple C program (not that it should make a difference ... but who knows?)? > - Regarding -o switch and "set snooping=1" I will try it tonight as well > > > The issue which bothers me is that it is possible to get unresponsive > system during application tracing which is not in line with statement > that I gave to my bosses that dtrace allows tracing with minimal system > impact :))) If it proves that my stupid example hangs box for minutes it > will be enough reason to reject all my efforts in convincing them to > switch to solaris :( one can overload any system :-) you need to be careful with sweeping statements, as you've seen, since there's frequently some way to prove an exception exists! I once made the mistake of typing pid$target::: where I meant pid$target:::entry,pid$target:::return (because in the kernel's fbt provider, which was all I'd seen at the time, that would have been the same), and the machine hung trying to instrument *every instruction* in the target process. IMO, DTrace is superior to any other technology in the same area, and, when used appropriately, probe impact is minimal. > I have to misuse this thread for another question: Q: Where can I > discuss asynchronous socketing on [Open]Solaris ? that'd be [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael -- Michael Schuster http://blogs.sun.com/recursion Recursion, n.: see 'Recursion' _______________________________________________ dtrace-discuss mailing list dtrace-discuss@opensolaris.org