Francois Gouget [email protected] writes:
But maybe we could ask for traces generated with +relay,+tid instead of just +relay. Also when you're working on a specific application for which you have determined that threads don't play a role, then you would have the option of omitting the +tid to get simpler traces.
I disagree, I think the thread information is important even if you are not chasing a thread problem, simply to tell you which calls are part of the same sequence. It's not possible to make sense of any relay trace if the calls made from different threads cannot be distinguished.
If the tid really disturbs you, you can always pipe the output into a sed 's/tid=.*//' or something similar.
On 10 Apr 2001, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Francois Gouget [email protected] writes:
But maybe we could ask for traces generated with +relay,+tid instead of just +relay. Also when you're working on a specific application for which you have determined that threads don't play a role, then you would have the option of omitting the +tid to get simpler traces.
I disagree, I think the thread information is important even if you are not chasing a thread problem, simply to tell you which calls are part of the same sequence. It's not possible to make sense of any relay trace if the calls made from different threads cannot be distinguished.
Which is why I suggested to specify +relay,+tid as the standard way to generate traces. But if you've already determined that the application you are debugging has only a single thread, or that there is a single active thread in the particular call sequence that is causing problems, then you can drop the +tid in the following traces. Also, this is why I think it's nice to have the tid on each trace. If not using +relay there is no indication of which thread is issuing the trace.
-- Francois Gouget [email protected] http://fgouget.free.fr/ Any sufficiently advanced Operating System is indistinguishable from Linux
"Francois" == Francois Gouget [email protected] writes:
Francois> Which is why I suggested to specify +relay,+tid as the Francois> standard way to generate traces. But if you've already Francois> determined that the application you are debugging has only a Francois> single thread, or that there is a single active thread in the Francois> particular call sequence that is causing problems, then you Francois> can drop the +tid in the following traces. Also, this is why Francois> I think it's nice to have the tid on each trace. If not using Francois> +relay there is no indication of which thread is issuing the Francois> trace.
Probably a silly idea, but what about "+relay" implying implicit "+relay,+tid" and "+relay,-tid" doing what is written?
Bye
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Francois Gouget -
Uwe Bonnes