On Tue Feb 28 11:27:33 2023 +0000, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
Is there much of a point in including the line number? I doubt it, the
file and function name is probably enough and from there you can easily browse to a trace. On the other hand, this *would* allow you to have multiple identical messages in the same function, which can be especially handy if you want to copy/paste a bunch of traces while debugging... I find it useful to just open the file and go to the right line without having to type the function name and then follow the function until you find the right message. It helps me keeping the thought flow I had while reading the logs. But I realize that's quite a personal thing, so my own solution for that is having my local development patches.
I think the question whether we should pass as much context as we can, ie: function and line information, doesn't depend on preferences. Not doing it forces everyone who is interested in having more context to keep very expensive local changes.
Whether they are printed out or not, or in a way or another might depend on preferences, but at least that's just a couple of very light changes in `__wine_dbg_header`.
Note that that's arguably true for the `strrchr` thing here, and maybe we should just pass `__FILE__` without thinking about it, and letting people print the full path if they like. That's also true with return address information, which I think could be useful to have.