From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1325 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2003 00:15:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 1284 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2003 00:15:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (146.82.138.56) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Jun 2003 00:15:20 -0000 Received: from dsl093-172-017.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.172.17] helo=nevyn.them.org ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19UF0D-0003Be-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 19:16:09 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19UEzK-0004Og-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:15:14 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 00:15:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: "set logging" Message-ID: <20030623001514.GA16884@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Doug Evans , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20030622205322.GA14138@nevyn.them.org> <16118.17005.496063.412462@casey.transmeta.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16118.17005.496063.412462@casey.transmeta.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00718.txt.bz2 On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 04:57:33PM -0700, Doug Evans wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > As discussed earlier: > > set logging on [FILE] > > set logging off > > set logging overwrite [I changed the default to append] > > set logging redirect > > set logging file > > show logging > > > > I decided that one-off command logging was really a different class of thing > > from this patch, which is straight output logging, not really script-useful > > redirection. So that's gone. > > For my own education, what's the difference? > > If one amends the definition of logging to include the > tracing of commands, then I'd agree: they are different. > Suppose you have a complex set of macros for driving a testsuite > and you want to see who's calling what, etc.; or when something > fails you want to know what was the last gdb command executed. > And suppose typically these scripts are run in batch mode, on a server > farm via cron jobs or some such. > Tracing of gdb commands as they execute is very useful here. > Not just the output of the commands but _the actual commands themselves_. > > I gather this patch isn't that though (or did I miss something?). That's what we called a "transcript" in the last conversation about this, something I deliberately did not implement. It's much more work to get right. > If one separates this from command output redirection for the purposes > of doing something further with the output (akin to pipes in shell-speak), > then I'd agree they are different. And this is what I was calling "script-useful redirection", i.e. formatted output. > Any opinions on whether the tracing of the commands > themselves, in addition to their output, would be a useful addition > to "set logging"? > "logging" suggests to me logging for debug/informational purposes, > as opposed to redirection for subsequent processing. > Adding tracing of the commands themselves seems like a useful addition > to me. Sure it is. I just don't have demand for it, so I didn't do it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer