[lldb-dev] logging in lldb

[Adrian McCarthy via lldb-dev]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 6:59 AM Pavel Labath <labath at google.com> wrote:
>
>> Happy new year everyone. :)
>>
>> I have refreshed the implementation at
>> <https://reviews.llvm.org/D27459> with something more polished. I
>> consider this almost-ready, I just need feedback on a couple of
>> details:
>>
>> - log->Warning/Debug/Error/Verbose: Currently we have a large number
>> of printf-style logging functions, which are very rarely used (and all
>> they do is prefix the log line with some string), and only one
>> formatv-style. It would be easy to add LLDB_WARN, LLDB_ERR, etc.
>> macros, so that these usages can be ported to the formatv-style.
>> However, I am not sure whether that's really necessary. One of the
>> goals of this process could be to standardize on one function. I would
>> prefer to keep just one log function, but I could be easily convinced
>> otherwise. For reference, these are the current approximate usages of
>> the logging functions (as determined by grep)
>> log->Error: 38 (mostly in ProcessWindows)
>> log->Warning: 25
>> log->Debug: 10 (mostly ClangExpressionParser)
>> log->Verbose: 6 (only ProcessWindows)
>> log->Printf: 2884
>>
> Yea, these are unnecessary and it would be great to get rid of them.
>
>
>>
>> - ProcessWindowsLog: I am not going to go on a reformatting spree to
>> change all logging statements, but I would still like to change remove
>> the logging macros that windows log introduced, since they are very
>> custom, and I'd like to keep the number of logging syntaxes below 3
>> :). Zachary, Adrian, is that OK with you?
>>
> Fine with me, they were only introduced as an alternative to the verbose
> if (log) syntaxes.  If there's an alternative that also solves the problem
> and we can adopt everywhere, then I'm all for it.
>

Fine with me as well.


>
>
>>
>> I must confess have a bit of an ulterior motive for doing this. :) My
>> goal is to start working on the modularization of the codebase. But I
>> don't want it to be just mindless moving of code around. I want to
>> spend some time considering the design of each piece, which should
>> slow things down long enough for the moves to not be annoying, and
>> hopefully produce better components. I'll write more on that soon - I
>> don't want to derail this discussion with it.
>>
> I'd start with one support library which we document and write in stone
> (perhaps even enforce in CMake) that it can have no other dependencies on
> LLDB libraries.  Then start moving various common data structures and
> classes over there.  Like you said, we should save the details for another
> thread, but in any case i look forward to seeing some proposals :)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20170111/09c1322f/attachment.html>