This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-developers@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: cygwin_lock_lock strace output
- From: Christopher Faylor <me at cgf dot cx>
- To: cygwin-developers at cygwin dot com
- Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:28:23 -0500
- Subject: Re: cygwin_lock_lock strace output
- References: <20041210161945.GJ22056@cygbert.vinschen.de>
- Reply-to: cygwin-developers at cygwin dot com
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 05:19:45PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>Does anybody hate the
>
> __cygwin_lock_unlock: threadcount 1. not unlocking
> __cygwin_lock_lock: threadcount 1. not locking
>
>strace messages as much as I do? Is it really necessary to print them
>all the time?
No, it's not necessary. I used paranoid_printf there because I thought that
meant that the messages wouldn't be printed all of the time.
>To put it in other words, would it hurt people badly if we change the
>default strace mask so that the _STRACE_PARANOID flag isn't set anymore
>as in
>
> if (!mask)
> mask = _STRACE_ALL & ~_STRACE_PARANOID
>
>?
What gets printed or not printed via the misnamed "all" is defined in
strace.h. I just checked in a patch which should remove
paranoid_printf's from all output:
Patches:
http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/winsup/cygwin/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=src&r1=1.2612&r2=1.2613
http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/winsup/cygwin/include/sys/strace.h.diff?cvsroot=src&r1=1.17&r2=1.18
cgf