This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the frysk project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: EventViewer and time.

Nurdin Premji wrote:
I've been thinking about how the eventviewer represents events and I
think in terms of a time-line it does this too realistically. What I
mean by this is that if there is 10 seconds of time between event "a"
and event "b", and 5 seconds of time between event "b" and event "c",
then we will see event "a", a large gap, event "b", a smaller gap, event

This seems natural, however when debugging for the most part we don't
really care how much time is between each pair of events, we just want
to know that event "a" happened, then event "b" then event "c". (or "c"
then "b" and we see the race condition that we were looking for for
Wow... I would like to state that I have in no way influenced Nurdin :)
So is anybody really set on having realistic time differences between
events or can I start switching it over to have a set amount of space
between each event. I don't want events to overlap, so if an event
happens then each trace will move forward one space to decide where to
put an event.

So previously if thread A forked, then waited 10 seconds, then thread B
cloned, wait 5 seconds,  and thread A exited we would see:

Thread A -------[]-------------*
Thread B--------------------()---

I propose:

Thread A -----[]-----------*
Thread B -----------()-----

Any thoughts?
My only observation is that you have to be careful to reserve the order of the events
Ie. events appear in the order 1,2,3 no matter what thread they occurred on

Thread A -----1----------3
Thread B -----------2-----

I will try to send you a pointer to the thread where this was previously dicussed

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]