OK to add _STRACE_FORK category?
Tue May 10 10:09:00 GMT 2011
On May 4 15:33, Ryan Johnson wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm currently producing sending quite a bit of information to
> special_printf while forking, and suspect that at least some of it
> would be good to leave in place. Further, I think it would make
> sense to have a fork category for strace so that people trying to
> diagnose fork problems have a way to figure out what's going wrong
> without having to slog through strace's all/debug output:
> thread 0x040000 (_STRACE_THREAD) Thread-locking calls.
> + fork 0x080000 (_STRACE_FORK) Fork-related information.
> special 0x100000 (_STRACE_SPECIAL) Special debugging printfs for
> non-checked-in code
> If folks are all right seeing an _STRACE_FORK appear, I'll add that
I just noticed that I never replied. Please use sigproc_printf and
debug_printf. However, fork has already a lot of strace output, so
it would be favorable to keep the number of extra printfs as small
as possible. Maybe there are even some we should remove.
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
More information about the Cygwin-developers