Dan wrote:
OK. I'd suggest starting by looking at http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15435 "Wine logs too verbose, quieter fixme's needed" and sending in a patch to make one of the overly-verbose fixme's a bit quieter.
Thanks. I'll look at it.
Also, check your mail system; I can't email to you directly, it bounces. And that's going to be a problem communicating with other developers.
A system disk failed this past weekend and I've been trying to get everything back up. I got test messages through starting about two hours ago. I've been checking the mailing list archive. (Yes, messages do not get properly threaded that way.) I'm also in the process of reinstalling much software. That machine is not very fast...
- Max
Dan wrote:
OK. I'd suggest starting by looking at http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15435 "Wine logs too verbose, quieter fixme's needed" and sending in a patch to make one of the overly-verbose fixme's a bit quieter.
Thanks. I'll look at it.
Summary: Wine logs too verbose, quieter fixme's needed
The bug report contains, among other things, this suggestion:
One thing we've done in the past is added a check to only print the fixme the first time it's hit. This is probably the way to go.
...
I took a look at this one, but it seems there's a WINE_SPI_FIXME macro in there, which makes it a bit harder to fix.
Which suggests to me that the macro(s) could be modified to: 1. Use a local code block to declare a static flag variable. 2. Check that variable for zero (the default initial value IIUC) 3. and if it is zero, set the flag non-zero and print the message.
There is a short race where different threads might see the zero value. If that happens, the message would be printed more than once. I believe that is acceptable because the alternate is to create a critical section, which is over-kill.
That would limit ALL fixme's to one printing. The bug report mentioned variable information that might be included but implied that any such information is more properly included in a 'trace'.
- Max