| |||||||||||||
Tracing: no shortage of optionsTracing: no shortage of optionsPosted Jul 22, 2008 23:57 UTC (Tue) by SEJeff (subscriber, #51588)In reply to: Tracing: no shortage of options by bronson Parent article: Tracing: no shortage of options
DTrace on Linux is basicly a noop due to licensing conflict. Now what would happen if someone wrote a syntax compatible "dtrace interpreter" that used systemtap and utrace, once it comes out? That would be a win/win because you have 1 language, D, for tracing events on two of the most popular posix platforms.
(Log in to post comments)
Tracing: no shortage of options Posted Jul 23, 2008 4:05 UTC (Wed) by willy (subscriber, #9762) [Link] Four -- Linux, Solaris, MacOS and FreeBSD. The other three already use DTrace.
Tracing: no shortage of options Posted Jul 23, 2008 12:32 UTC (Wed) by fuhchee (subscriber, #40059) [Link] It might not be hard for systemtap to parse dtrace's smaller scripting language, but there's more to it than that. A variety of dtrace kernel and userspace features have no equivalent yet, so many real dtrace scripts would not work. Plus, may dtrace scripts use type names/structs/fields that do not correspond to those in linux, so one would need to change those scripts or create a solaris emulation layer someplace.
Tracing: no shortage of options Posted Jul 31, 2008 9:13 UTC (Thu) by renox (subscriber, #23785) [Link] [[Plus, may dtrace scripts use type names/structs/fields that do not correspond to those in linux, so one would need to change those scripts or create a solaris emulation layer someplace.]] Those issue are the same for FreeBSD, MacOS X, no? And AFAIK they have not made a Solaris emulation layer, so Solaris-specific dtrace's script won't work here either.. A compatibility layer with dtrace portable scripts would be nice, but compatibility with OS-specific dtrace scripts doesn't matter much IMHO.
|
|||||||||||||