Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC] Simplifying logging code

2015-08-13 Thread Greg Clayton via lldb-dev
There are also a few competing log implementations. There are ones like in "source/Core/Logging.cpp" which are hard coded, and then there is a plugin version as you can see in LogChannelDWARF.cpp. The latter is the newer way to implement custom log channels without hand coding a copy of "source

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC] Simplifying logging code

2015-08-13 Thread Tamas Berghammer via lldb-dev
Thank you for the link to the previous discussion and the description of the Windows logging. I like the idea of the macro based logging on Windows but agree that the explicit log channel definition is a bit too verbose. Currently I would prefer a mixed solution with 'Log* log = ...; LOG_IF(log, "

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC] Simplifying logging code

2015-08-12 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
After the previous discussion I agree that evaluating the arguments is unacceptable. But you are correct here that a macro would solve this. In fact, most C++ log libraries use macros I guess for this very reason. I decided to make some macros for the windows plugin which you can look at it in P

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC] Simplifying logging code

2015-08-12 Thread Jim Ingham via lldb-dev
The previous discussion (with patch) was here: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/lldb-commits/Week-of-Mon-20150427/018839.html Jim > On Aug 12, 2015, at 6:11 AM, Vince Harron via lldb-dev > wrote: > > We could solve booth the efficiency concerns and the conciseness with a > macro. (Gasp!)

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC] Simplifying logging code

2015-08-12 Thread Vince Harron via lldb-dev
We could solve booth the efficiency concerns and the conciseness with a macro. (Gasp!) ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC] Simplifying logging code

2015-08-12 Thread Tamas Berghammer via lldb-dev
I don't remember to any discussion about it but I might just missed it (don't see it in the archive either). >From the efficiency perspective in most of the case evaluating the arguments for Printf should be very fast (printing local variable) and the few case where it isn't the case we can keep t

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC] Simplifying logging code

2015-08-12 Thread Colin Riley via lldb-dev
From an efficiency perspective, the arguments to Printf will still need to be evaluated. Some of those arguments touch multiple areas and will require significant effort to change into a new format, which is essentially the exact same as we have now. Was there not a decision to stick with what

[lldb-dev] [RFC] Simplifying logging code

2015-08-12 Thread Tamas Berghammer via lldb-dev
Hi All, At the moment logging in LLDB done in the following way: Log* log = GetLogIfAllCategoriesSet(...); if (log) log->Printf(...); This approach is clean and easy to understand but have the disadvantage of being a bit verbose. What is the general opinion about changing it to something like