Actually, I think that was dump_dir_name. -- Caroline
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Caroline Tice <cmt...@google.com> wrote: > I was talking with Diego, and he suggested the possibility of putting > the log files in the same directory that the gcc dump files go, i.e. > the one specified by dump_base_name. Do you think that would be > acceptable? > > -- Caroline Tice > cmt...@google.com > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Caroline Tice <cmt...@google.com> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> >>The output to the file doesn't have >>>> >> any indication of what file is being compiled, so it will be ambiguous >>>> >> when run in parallel. >>>> > >>>> > You are mistaken. It outputs one line to the log file for each >>>> > compilation >>>> > unit. The output line begins with the name of the file that was being >>>> > compiled. In my use case, I have used this to build a very large >>>> > system, >>>> > which resulted in something like at 8000 line log file of counts, which >>>> > I >>>> > then used my sum script on to see how the verifications were going. >>>> >>>> I was mistaken in detail but I'm not sure I was mistaken in principle. >>>> What happens if you are building the large system twice in different >>>> directories on the same machine? Or, for that matter, if two >>>> different people are doing so? Or if one person did it a while ago, >>>> and now you want to do it, but you can't open the file because it is >>>> owned by the other person? >>>> >>>> Maybe you should simply change -fvtv-counts to take a file name, then >>>> we don't have to worry about any of this. >>>> >>> It's not quite that simple: the -fvtv-counts flag actually causes two files >>> to be created; also there's another flag, -fvtv-debug that generates a third >>> file (i wanted a lot of information when I was working on and debugging this >>> feature). Also if users are arbitrarily allowed to name the counts file >>> anything, the summing script program I wrote won't be able to find them. >> >> That doesn't seem like a compelling argument to me, since one could >> pass the file names to the summing script as well. >> >> As far as I can see, on a multi-user system, there is no reasonable >> alternative to permitting the user to specify the file names to use, >> or at least a directory where the files should be placed. And if >> permit that, why not simply require it? >> >> Ian
