Re: [PATCH] Move "tee" building down to interpreter::set_logging_proc

Simon Marchi
2017-02-02T17:45:01Z

On 2017-02-02 12:39, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 02/02/2017 03:17 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
>> On 2017-02-02 09:28, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>> @@ -109,13 +109,13 @@ extern int current_interp_named_p (const char
>>> *name);
>>>
>>> /* Call this function to give the current interpreter an opportunity
>>> to do any special handling of streams when logging is enabled or
>>> - disabled. START_LOG is 1 when logging is starting, 0 when it
>>> ends,
>>> - and OUT is the stream for the log file; it will be NULL when
>>> - logging is ending. LOGFILE is non-NULL if the output streams
>>> + disabled. START_LOG is true when logging is starting, false when
>>
>> START_LOG is not there anymore. From what I understand, it's replaced
>> with LOGFILE being null or not?
>
> You're right. How about this:
>
> -- i/gdb/interps.h
> +++ w/gdb/interps.h
> @@ -109,10 +109,10 @@ extern int current_interp_named_p (const char
> *name);
>
> /* Call this function to give the current interpreter an opportunity
> to do any special handling of streams when logging is enabled or
> - disabled. START_LOG is true when logging is starting, false when
> - it ends. LOGFILE is the stream for the log file; it's NULL when
> - logging is ending. LOGGING_REDIRECT is false if the output streams
> - are to be tees, with the log file as one of the outputs. */
> + disabled. LOGFILE is the stream for the log file when logging is
> + starting and is NULL when logging is ending. LOGGING_REDIRECT is
> + false if the output streams are to be tees, with the log file as
> + one of the outputs. */
>
> extern void current_interp_set_logging (ui_file_up logfile,
> bool logging_redirect);
>
>
> OK?

Yeah sounds good.

Though the pre-existing sentence "...if the output streams are to be
tees" is not that clear to me, I'm not sure I would understand if I
didn't already know what the function does. Why does it talk about
multiple output streams that have to be tees, isn't there only one tee?
Or is it meant to be a past tense verb, in which case it should be
something like "...are to be tee-ed"? I just find the formulation
awkward.