is dtrace usable?

[John Baldwin]

On Wednesday 10 March 2010 5:34:22 am Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Quoting "Robert N. M. Watson" <rwatson at freebsd.org> (from Tue, 9 Mar  
> 2010 16:39:09 +0000):
> 
> >
> > On Mar 9, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> >
> >>> From this you can see that sys.mk is included and parsed before 
'Makefile',
> >>> so the WITH_CTF=yes is not set until after sys.mk has been parsed.
> >>
> >> I think we need to find a different solution for this. The need to  
> >> specify WITH_CTF at the command line is very error prone. :(
> >
> > You are neither the first person to have made this observation, nor  
> > the first person to have failed to propose a solution in the form of  
> > a patch :-).
> 
> It is not a problem to provide a patch, the problem is something else.
> 
> Is it correct that the result of the ctfmerge/cftconvert stuff is not  
> covered by the CDDL?
> 
> If yes, why not use it by default if the programs are available (I've  
> read the comment for the NO_CTF part, but IMO we have a chicken&egg  
> situation here, dtrace will not become popular if it is not easy to  
> use it)? This default can be made only for the kernel (by making a  
> copy of the definition of CTFCONVERT into bsd.prog.mk and bsd.lib.mk,  
> or by undefining it there), or for kernel+userland (removing the  
> !WITH_CTF -> NO_CTF part from sys.mk).

Unfortunately the ctf stuff breaks static binaries.  I think that if that were 
fixed we would simply enable it by default and be done.

-- 
John Baldwin