Re: Allow output in winedbg to be redirected to a file

[Eric Pouech]

Jeremy White a écrit :
> Changelog:
>   Allow > and >> output redirection on winedbg commands to capture
>   output to a file.
> again (it's my bad day for Jer), I think we should stick to gdb commands: see 
> 'set logging' and friends.
> A+

Allow output in winedbg to be redirected to a file

[Jeremy White]

Eric Pouech wrote:
> Jeremy White a écrit :
> > Changelog:
> >   Allow > and >> output redirection on winedbg commands to capture
> >   output to a file.
>
> again (it's my bad day for Jer), I think we should stick to gdb 
> commands: see 'set logging' and friends.

Hmm.  I've never liked the gdb 'set logging' interface,
but I see your point.

I guess the question for winedbg is whether our goal is
pure gdb only, or if we want to be able to add things
to the interface.

Consider the gdb way:
(gdb) set logging overwrite off
(gdb) set logging file /tmp/foo
(gdb) set logging redirect on
(gdb) set logging on
Redirecting output to /tmp/foo.
(gdb) bt
(gdb) set logging off
Done logging to /tmp/foo.

vs what I proposed:
Wine-dbg> bt >>/tmp/foo

Further, I feel that the gdb set logging facility is not well
conceived; I can get most of that functionality by doing a
   gdb 2>&1 | tee session.txt
and modern xterm scroll back windows give me most of what else I need.

Now, I know very little about gdb, so there is quite
a good chance that I've missed the obvious and good shortcuts
to doing this; if so, I'm nearly recovered from my previous
encounters with the clue bat, so wack away.

But I would argue that my proposed interface can be seen as a
nice, and therefore desirable, extension to normal gdb
behavior.

I do recognize that my patch is probably fatally flawed; something
like that should really be built into the parser, and not hacked
into the input code.

Thoughts?

Jer

Allow output in winedbg to be redirected to a file

[Eric Pouech]

Jeremy White a écrit :
> Eric Pouech wrote:
> > Jeremy White a écrit :
> > > Changelog:
> > >   Allow > and >> output redirection on winedbg commands to capture
> > >   output to a file.
> >
> > again (it's my bad day for Jer), I think we should stick to gdb 
> > commands: see 'set logging' and friends.
>
> Hmm.  I've never liked the gdb 'set logging' interface,
> but I see your point.
>
> I guess the question for winedbg is whether our goal is
> pure gdb only, or if we want to be able to add things
> to the interface.
>
> Consider the gdb way:
> (gdb) set logging overwrite off
> (gdb) set logging file /tmp/foo
> (gdb) set logging redirect on
> (gdb) set logging on
> Redirecting output to /tmp/foo.
> (gdb) bt
> (gdb) set logging off
> Done logging to /tmp/foo.
>
> vs what I proposed:
> Wine-dbg> bt >>/tmp/foo
> IMO, if you just need the output of one command (which is what your patch does), 
> copy & paste is much easier.
> A good use case I can think of is when you started a debugging session (or 
> winedbg has been started after a crash), and you want to capture all the output 
> from now, which what gdb tends to do, which requires a session oriented type of 
> handling (which gdb does) and not command oriented (which your patch does).

A+