Traces: fs -> tid

[Francois Gouget]

On 10 Apr 2001, Alexandre Julliard wrote:

> Francois Gouget <fgouget at free.fr> writes:
> 
> >    Also, this is why I think it's nice to have the tid on each trace. If
> > not using +relay there is no indication of which thread is issuing the
> > trace.
> 
> I'm not opposed to a +tid option to switch on thread information on
> all traces. But I think +relay should always display the thread info,
> we will get too many useless traces if it doesn't.

   Maybe Uwe's proposal is the way to go then:


On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Uwe Bonnes wrote:
[...]
> Probably a silly idea, but what about "+relay" implying implicit
> "+relay,+tid" and "+relay,-tid" doing what is written?

   It would be quite easy to do if I could replace the current
'TRACE_ON(tid)' with:
   TRACE_ON(tid) || (TRACE_ON(relay) && !TRACE_OFF(tid))

   But this supposes that the trace status is tristate: on, off and
unspecified. TRACE_OFF would return true only if -tid is specified, and
TRACE_ON only if +tid is specified.

   Another way to do this would be to hack the code decoding the
debugmsg settings to recognize +relay and set +tid at the same time, so
that '+relay'=='+relay,+tid'=='-tid,+relay' != '+relay,-tid'. But the
last two may be confusing.

   IMHO, going the tristate way would be cleaner and should be simple
enough.


--
Francois Gouget         fgouget at free.fr        http://fgouget.free.fr/
   Nouvelle version : les anciens bogues ont été remplacés par de nouveaux.