I was talking with Diego, and he suggested the possibility of putting the log files in the same directory that the gcc dump files go, i.e. the one specified by dump_base_name. Do you think that would be acceptable?
-- Caroline Tice cmt...@google.com On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Caroline Tice <cmt...@google.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> >>The output to the file doesn't have >>> >> any indication of what file is being compiled, so it will be ambiguous >>> >> when run in parallel. >>> > >>> > You are mistaken. It outputs one line to the log file for each >>> > compilation >>> > unit. The output line begins with the name of the file that was being >>> > compiled. In my use case, I have used this to build a very large >>> > system, >>> > which resulted in something like at 8000 line log file of counts, which >>> > I >>> > then used my sum script on to see how the verifications were going. >>> >>> I was mistaken in detail but I'm not sure I was mistaken in principle. >>> What happens if you are building the large system twice in different >>> directories on the same machine? Or, for that matter, if two >>> different people are doing so? Or if one person did it a while ago, >>> and now you want to do it, but you can't open the file because it is >>> owned by the other person? >>> >>> Maybe you should simply change -fvtv-counts to take a file name, then >>> we don't have to worry about any of this. >>> >> It's not quite that simple: the -fvtv-counts flag actually causes two files >> to be created; also there's another flag, -fvtv-debug that generates a third >> file (i wanted a lot of information when I was working on and debugging this >> feature). Also if users are arbitrarily allowed to name the counts file >> anything, the summing script program I wrote won't be able to find them. > > That doesn't seem like a compelling argument to me, since one could > pass the file names to the summing script as well. > > As far as I can see, on a multi-user system, there is no reasonable > alternative to permitting the user to specify the file names to use, > or at least a directory where the files should be placed. And if > permit that, why not simply require it? > > Ian
