Hi Attilio,
personally I think Macros might not be the best idea - one of the design
principles of RIOT so far is to limit the use of Macros to the minimum.
You can actually get the same results for the code below by using a
plain API based approach:
log_api.h:
void log_info(...);
implementations 1:
void log_info(...) {
printf(...);
}
implementation 2:
void log_info() { /* this function will be optimized away... */
/* do nothing here */
}
Now when setting up your project, just tell the make file which of the
implementations to use:
USEMODULE+=log_implementation1
or
USEMODULE+=log_implementation2
This soultion does not only scale better, but it is IMHO the cleaner
approach.
Cheers,
Hauke
On 23.02.2015 11:25, Attilio Dona wrote:
Hi Ludwig,
In my simple tinking the macro approach does not exclude the API, just
a pseudo code example:
API log_api.h:
...
void log.info <http://log.info>(const char* fmt, ...);
...
#ifdef ENABLE_INFO
#define LOG_INFO(...) log.info <http://log.info>(__VA_ARGS__)
#else
#define LOG_INFO(...)
#endif
In RIOT framework and application code use exclusively the macro
LOG_INFO, LOG_DEBUG, ecc. ecc. so you have one more degree of freedom
for easy including/stripping the tracing code from the binary.
Another advantage with the macro usage is obviously the possibility to
change to another logging implementation in one place instead of
modifying all source lines where log is instrumented.
Attilio
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Ludwig Ortmann
<ludwig.ortm...@fu-berlin.de <mailto:ludwig.ortm...@fu-berlin.de>> wrote:
Hi Attilio, Martine,
are you suggesting macros are better than APIs + functions?
If so, please explain why and what better means ;)
Cheers, Ludwig
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 09:26:34AM +0100, Attilio Dona wrote:
> Also for me the MACRO approach has to be considered in a design
review,
> eventually in addition to a tracing API layer.
>
> Just to add my bit of experience with RIOT about porting msp430
family on
> new TI/redhat gcc 4.9:
>
> the default nanolib bundled with the toolchain implies a big
printf memory
> usage, not suitable for a lot of msp430 chips.
>
> At the moment my solution is to use tinyprintf:
>
> https://github.com/cjlano/tinyprintf
>
> It works as expected, with some minor modification to suit my port.
>
> Greetings
> Attilio
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Martine Lenders
<authmille...@gmail.com <mailto:authmille...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 thought about this for a long time, too. Though my approach
would be
> > with macros and more global (similar to how DEBUG is now).
> >
> > Am 23.02.2015 07:16 schrieb "Ludwig Ortmann"
<ludwig.ortm...@fu-berlin.de <mailto:ludwig.ortm...@fu-berlin.de>
> > >:
> >
> > >
> > > Hi Jozef,
> > >
> > > AFAIK there has been no work on a solution so far.
> > > However, I thought about this the other day in the context
of the
> > function pointer discussion and would like to propose a
"logging" API
> > (maybe there is an issue for that as well somewhere) for
`core`, which
> > offers things like `log.info <http://log.info>(...)` and
`log.error(...)`.
> > > Different logging modules can implement this API then,
ranging from
> > `printf` over file based logging to network messages.
> > > And then there should also be a `(void) ...` implementation
which suits
> > production and ultra low memory needs.
> > >
> > > Opinions?
> > >
> > > Cheers, Ludwig
> > >
> > > Am 23. Februar 2015 03:16:33 MEZ, schrieb Jozef Maslik <
> > ma...@binarylemon.com <mailto:ma...@binarylemon.com>>:
> > > >
> > > >Hi,
> > > >
> > > >Could you please give me information about actual state of
"replace
> > > >printf and puts" issues?
https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/issues/994,
> > > >https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/issues/641
> > > >
> > > >I’m working with MKL02Z32 which has 4kB RAM. Printf or puts
which are
> > > >almost everywhere make a big problem. I removed them from
my fork, but
> > > >it is not good or nice solution.
> > > >
> > > >If I miss something important around “printing issue”
please correct
> > > >me.
> > > >How others deal with this issue? (printf or puts usage like
here, is
> > > >not nessesary in real applications).
> > > >
> > > >Regards,
> > > >Jozef
> > > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >devel mailing list
> > > >devel@riot-os.org <mailto:devel@riot-os.org>
> > > >http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > devel mailing list
> > > devel@riot-os.org <mailto:devel@riot-os.org>
> > > http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > devel mailing list
> > devel@riot-os.org <mailto:devel@riot-os.org>
> > http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel@riot-os.org <mailto:devel@riot-os.org>
> http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org <mailto:devel@riot-os.org>
http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org
http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org
http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
