[PATCH] Mask mnemonics and expressions, help, getopts_long() for strace - current diff
Corinna Vinschen
cygwin-patches@cygwin.com
Wed Nov 14 07:09:00 GMT 2001
On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 08:59:18AM -0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> > > + -f, --fork-debug ???\n\
> >
> > The usage information for -f is missing. -f means, trace not only
> > the application on the command line but also child apps forked by
> > the originally traced app.
> >
>
> Ok, thanks, yeah, I forgot to ask what that did. In light of that, perhaps the
> long option would be better if it was something like "--trace-children" or
> "--trace-forked-children"?
Hmm, --trace-forkee? --trace-over-fork? I'm not sure either.
Would be better if english would be my first language, I guess.
> > > + -d, --delta Add a delta-t timestamp to each
> > output line.\n\
> >
> > Giving the -d option doesn't show the delta but removes it from the output.
> > That should be the other way around.
> >
>
> So it does (well, more precisely it appears to switch from delta to absolute).
> I thought sure I checked that. I'll change the longopt to "--absolute" and
> update the usage text. Is "-d" too entrenched at this point to change it to
> "-a" at the same time and make things a little more consistent?
Uhm, from what I could see it actually just removes the delta from
the output. Since there is already an absolute stamp, I don't
think changing the option to -a,--absolute makes sense. Just
use -d,--no-delta and stuck with the current behaviour.
> > > + -u, --usecs Add a microsecond-resolution
> > timestamp to each
> > > + output line.\n\
> >
> > -u seem to have no effect on the output.
> >
>
> It appears that this option is either being ignored by the rest of the code or
> isn't implemented properly, I can't tell which. The 'usecs' global switch
> variable is used only in syst(), and even there apparently not as a switch.
> Then in handle_output_debug_string() there's a local of the same name declared.
>
> I think what I'll do is just remove this from the usage text until I can figure
> this out and/or somebody can explain it to me. Maybe this option should just be
> removed completely.
Yeah, from that point of view... FWIW, it could make sense to remove
the output... Hmm, dunno.
Any other opinion on that?
> Done and done. I'll generate a new diff tonight. Sorry about the problems,
> thanks for catching them.
Sure. You're welcome. I recall that my first patches back in 1998
weren't clean either :-)
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.
More information about the Cygwin-patches
mailing list