Re: [lldb-dev] logging in lldb

2016-12-09 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 7:36 AM Zachary Turner wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 4:00 AM Jason Molenda via Phabricator < > revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > > > I'm not thrilled with the formatv reinvention of format specification. > The printf formatters are a bizarre little invention, but it's

Re: [lldb-dev] logging in lldb

2016-12-09 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 4:00 AM Jason Molenda via Phabricator < revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > > I'm not thrilled with the formatv reinvention of format specification. > The printf formatters are a bizarre little invention, but it's a bizarre > invention that we've all worked with for decades a

Re: [lldb-dev] logging in lldb

2016-12-09 Thread Pavel Labath via lldb-dev
There were additional comments on the lldb-commits thread. I am moving them here and responding: Jason Molenda wrote on the lldb-commits thread: > A couple of thoughts / two cents. > I don't mind the current if (log) { ... } style of logging, even with the > PRIx64's and having to do filepath.Get