Traces: fs -> tid

[Francois Gouget]

On 10 Apr 2001, Alexandre Julliard wrote:

> Francois Gouget <fgouget at free.fr> writes:
> 
> >    But maybe we could ask for traces generated with +relay,+tid instead
> > of just +relay.
> >    Also when you're working on a specific application for which you have
> > determined that threads don't play a role, then you would have the
> > option of omitting the +tid to get simpler traces.
> 
> I disagree, I think the thread information is important even if you
> are not chasing a thread problem, simply to tell you which calls are
> part of the same sequence. It's not possible to make sense of any
> relay trace if the calls made from different threads cannot be
> distinguished.

   Which is why I suggested to specify +relay,+tid as the standard way
to generate traces.
   But if you've already determined that the application you are
debugging has only a single thread, or that there is a single active
thread in the particular call sequence that is causing problems, then
you can drop the +tid in the following traces.
   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.


--
Francois Gouget         fgouget at free.fr        http://fgouget.free.fr/
  Any sufficiently advanced Operating System is indistinguishable from Linux