From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: julien.desfossez@polymtl.ca (Julien Desfossez)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 17:49:50 -0500
Subject: [ltt-dev] RFC LTTv TextDump
In-Reply-To: <4CED7902.3020504@polymtl.ca>
References: <4CEAD092.8020604@polymtl.ca>	<20101123182653.GA17097@Krystal>	<4CEC182E.5020805@polymtl.ca>	<4CED6372.7050203@polymtl.ca>
	<4CED7902.3020504@polymtl.ca>
Message-ID: <4CED968E.7000903@polymtl.ca>

On 24/11/10 03:43 PM, David Goulet wrote:
> On 10-11-24 02:11 PM, Michel Dagenais wrote:
>>
>>>> Note that the textdump can output content coming from multiple traces,
>>>> where having the trace name in the output for each event becomes
>>>> convenient.
>>
>> The problem is having the full path, a short "id" when interleaved
>> events are there would be useful (something about hostname and CPU)
>
> Yep exactly. Just to make it easy to read and easy to refer.
>
> I've also though of a small thing we could add is the time offset in
> nsec (or sec..) between two events.
>
> [...]
> event 1 (+4)
> event 2 (+7)
> [...]
>
> So that way we know *very* quickly what time it took from event 1 to
> event 2 which is 7. Considering a UST trace, this would be of great use!!
>
> We only need someone to do it now :)

While we are in the dream features, I would also like to see a way to 
pass a format string to the program to choose how the output is 
formatted (like the "date" program). For example "%t : %c, %e" to output 
"timestamp : channel, event". That way the output would suit everyone's 
need and specific parsers could be implemented on top of that.

Julien