Hi Mikael,

You can file bugs at bugs.opensolaris.org. The information you've provided
isn't really sufficient to be able to diagnose the problem (for example,
what provider are you talking about). Please provide as much relevant detail
as you can, and any relevant output from dtrace(1M).

Adam

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 09:32:37PM +0200, Mikael Ronstr?m wrote:
> Hi,
> After making a workaround in removing the last attribute and
> shortening the name of the probe I found that unfortunately
> now the entire provider is gone when I do dtrace -l which is
> a tad unfortunate :(
>
> Rgrds Mikael
>
> 16 maj 2008 kl. 20.47 skrev Mikael Ronstr?m:
>
>> Hi,
>> Had to forward to another email box to be able to send it :(
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I don't know how to file bugs towards DTrace yet, but here seems to be 
>>> one anyways.
>>> I made a DTrace probe that was part of an inline function, this inline 
>>> function was
>>> called in numberous places. However one of those places seems to cause 
>>> special pain.
>>>
>>> The function contained 6 parameters and DTrace's name of it was
>>> Undefined                       first referenced
>>>  symbol                             in file
>>> _ZN4Dbtc20deleteFromIndexTableEP6SignalPNS_18TcFiredTriggerDataEP3PtrINS_16ApiConnectRecordEEPS4_INS_15TcConnectRecordEEPNS_11T
>>>  
>>> blocks/ndb_blocks_dtrace.o
>>>  The function looked like this:
>>>   void deleteFromIndexTable(Signal* signal,
>>>                             TcFiredTriggerData* firedTriggerData,
>>>                             ApiConnectRecordPtr* transPtr,
>>>                             TcConnectRecordPtr* opPtr,
>>>                             TcIndexData* indexData,
>>>                             bool holdOperation = false);
>>>
>>> From what I can see this is a simple matter of an array being declared to 
>>> short in DTrace since it seems to
>>> cut the name short here.
>>>
>>> The workaround is of course to get rid of a few parameters in some way 
>>> and this works, going down to
>>> four parameters and it works fine. However it's a similar function where 
>>> this works so is properly a bit
>> more complex.
>>>
>>>
>>> Rgrds Mikael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dtrace-discuss mailing list
>> dtrace-discuss@opensolaris.org
>

> _______________________________________________
> dtrace-discuss mailing list
> dtrace-discuss@opensolaris.org


-- 
Adam Leventhal, Fishworks                        http://blogs.sun.com/ahl
_______________________________________________
dtrace-discuss mailing list
dtrace-discuss@opensolaris.org

Reply via email to