Re: [Ltrace-devel] Addition to the manpage
Dima Kogan li...@dima.secretsauce.net writes: OK. New patch pushed up. Merged. Thanks, PM ___ Ltrace-devel mailing list Ltrace-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltrace-devel
Re: [Ltrace-devel] Addition to the manpage
Dima Kogan li...@dima.secretsauce.net writes: Do you think this is better? I can go either way. Well, this only adds the exited messages, and I find it better that you don't hide anything from the user. The added exited is no distraction at all, I think. I would also put the whole example in a section of its own, presumably named EXAMPLE, or maybe SYMBOL FILTERING EXAMPLE. That should only come after the FILTERING EXPRESSIONS, as conceptually it builds on what's written there. It would however be good to refer to this new section from -e, -x and -l. Sure? I think the way it is now is better. Both putting the examples first (all perl docs do that, and they tend to be very good) and putting them into the same section (but different subsections). If you don't have strong feelings here, I'd rather leave it. In my opinion, explanations of differences between -x, -e and -l don't belong in a section that describes filtering expressions, which is a logically lower-level topic. I don't have particularly strong feelings about ordering though, so if you think it's better to put examples first, then so be it. Thanks, PM ___ Ltrace-devel mailing list Ltrace-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltrace-devel
Re: [Ltrace-devel] Addition to the manpage
Petr Machata pmach...@redhat.com writes: Dima Kogan li...@dima.secretsauce.net writes: Hi. I added a section to the manpage giving an example of the effects of -l, -x and -e. It's here: https://github.com/dkogan/ltrace/tree/manpage This looks good. I wonder about the effect of grep in there--that only filters the exit messages, doesn't it? I think it would be better to have them included and not have the grep there, so that it doesn't look as if it's hiding something important. The grep is just there to highlight what is being described. Without it it looks like this: === without -Bsymbolic === $ ltrace -x 'func*' -L ./tst func_f_main() = void func_f_...@tstlib.so( unfinished ... func_g_...@tstlib.so()= void ... func_f_lib resumed )= void +++ exited (status 163) +++ $ ltrace -e 'func*' ./tst tst-func_f_lib( unfinished ... tstlib.so-func_g_lib() = void ... func_f_lib resumed )= void +++ exited (status 163) +++ $ ltrace -l tstlib.so ./tst tst-func_f_lib( unfinished ... tstlib.so-func_g_lib() = void ... func_f_lib resumed )= void +++ exited (status 163) +++ === with -Bsymbolic === $ ltrace -x 'func*' -L ./tst func_f_main() = void func_f_...@tstlib.so( unfinished ... func_g_...@tstlib.so()= void ... func_f_lib resumed )= void +++ exited (status 163) +++ $ ltrace -e 'func*' ./tst tst-func_f_lib() = void +++ exited (status 163) +++ $ ltrace -l tstlib.so ./tst tst-func_f_lib() = void +++ exited (status 163) +++ Do you think this is better? I can go either way. I would also put the whole example in a section of its own, presumably named EXAMPLE, or maybe SYMBOL FILTERING EXAMPLE. That should only come after the FILTERING EXPRESSIONS, as conceptually it builds on what's written there. It would however be good to refer to this new section from -e, -x and -l. Sure? I think the way it is now is better. Both putting the examples first (all perl docs do that, and they tend to be very good) and putting them into the same section (but different subsections). If you don't have strong feelings here, I'd rather leave it. dima ___ Ltrace-devel mailing list Ltrace-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltrace-devel
