Re: propsys: mention that the functions are stubs
On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 21:26 +0200, André Hentschel wrote:
Hans might have missed that
No, to me a fixme that prints a parameter list without further explanation implies that the function is a stub.
Am 14.06.2010 22:01, schrieb Hans Leidekker:
On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 21:26 +0200, André Hentschel wrote:
Hans might have missed that
No, to me a fixme that prints a parameter list without further explanation implies that the function is a stub.
That's somehow true, but for easier reading it is better i guess. Also i think the apistats parser also checks for something like "FIXME(.*)stub" and calls it pseudo stubs if i remember correctly. Even if apistats dont work we should keep that style. -- Best Regards, André Hentschel
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, André Hentschel wrote:
Am 14.06.2010 22:01, schrieb Hans Leidekker:
On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 21:26 +0200, André Hentschel wrote:
Hans might have missed that
No, to me a fixme that prints a parameter list without further explanation implies that the function is a stub.
That's somehow true, but for easier reading it is better i guess. Also i think the apistats parser also checks for something like "FIXME(.*)stub" and calls it pseudo stubs if i remember correctly. Even if apistats dont work we should keep that style.
Just to confirm what André said, if the FIXME does not contain the word 'stub', then apistats has no way to know it's a (pseudo-)stub. I would further argue that even a human reading the log would have no way to know as quite a few implemented functions still dump their parameters. So even for humans it's better to add 'stub' to the FIXME message. -- Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> http://fgouget.free.fr/ Linux: the choice of a GNU generation
On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 10:25 +0200, Francois Gouget wrote:
Just to confirm what André said, if the FIXME does not contain the word 'stub', then apistats has no way to know it's a (pseudo-)stub.
Wouldn't it be sufficient for our purposes to just count every first fixme in a WINAPI function as a stub? As it is now there's a large percentage of fixmes that don't include the 'stub' keyword.
I would further argue that even a human reading the log would have no way to know as quite a few implemented functions still dump their parameters. So even for humans it's better to add 'stub' to the FIXME message.
I'd say we need turn those into traces and add fixmes for the unimplemented parts, if needed.
Wouldn't it be sufficient for our purposes to just count every first fixme in a WINAPI function as a stub? As it is now there's a large percentage of fixmes that don't include the 'stub' keyword.
A FIXME doesn't neccesarily indicate a stub. It sometimes is like "Flag FOO unsupported", which is not the same as a stub. Maybe we could have STUB macro to be called in stub functions. Peter
On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 12:41 +0100, Peter Davies wrote:
Wouldn't it be sufficient for our purposes to just count every first fixme in a WINAPI function as a stub? As it is now there's a large percentage of fixmes that don't include the 'stub' keyword.
A FIXME doesn't neccesarily indicate a stub. It sometimes is like "Flag FOO unsupported", which is not the same as a stub. Maybe we could have STUB macro to be called in stub functions.
Sure, we would overestimate the number of stubs a little but I don't think we need such accurate statistics, it's certainly not worth the addition of a new macro. You could even catch most of those false positives by ignoring fixmes which are preceded by a trace.
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Hans Leidekker wrote: [...]
Wouldn't it be sufficient for our purposes to just count every first fixme in a WINAPI function as a stub? As it is now there's a large percentage of fixmes that don't include the 'stub' keyword.
I would further argue that even a human reading the log would have no way to know as quite a few implemented functions still dump their parameters. So even for humans it's better to add 'stub' to the FIXME message.
I'd say we need turn those into traces and add fixmes for the unimplemented parts, if needed.
I agree with the turning these to TRACE()s part. In all the other places I have seen they are TRACE()s, not FIXME()s. But they need the 'stub' keyword either way to not be ambiguous. -- Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> http://fgouget.free.fr/ A particle is an irreducible representation of the Poincaré Group - Eugene Wigner
Am 15.06.2010 11:25, schrieb Hans Leidekker:
Wouldn't it be sufficient for our purposes to just count every first fixme in a WINAPI function as a stub? As it is now there's a large percentage of fixmes that don't include the 'stub' keyword.
Can you show me at least 3 stub functions with a fixme and without the stub keyword -- Best Regards, André Hentschel
participants (5)
-
André Hentschel -
Francois Gouget -
Hans Leidekker -
Juan Lang -
Peter Davies