Traces: fs -> tid
fgouget at free.fr
Tue Apr 10 16:22:44 CDT 2001
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) || (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
Francois Gouget fgouget at free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/
Nouvelle version : les anciens bogues ont été remplacés par de nouveaux.
More information about the wine-devel