one minus -- less gdb friendly. David
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Lawrence Crowl <cr...@googlers.com> wrote: > On 11/20/12, Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> wrote: >> On Nov 20, 2012 Basile Starynkevitch <bas...@starynkevitch.net> wrote: >> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:24:40AM -0800, Lawrence Crowl wrote: >> > > function (FILE *, item_to_dump, formatting) >> > > function (item_to_dump, formatting) >> > >> > Since we have switched to C++, it would be really nice to have >> > dump functions writing to a C++ std::ostream >> >> I'm not sure what to think about using streams. I have no great >> familiarity with them, so I can't say whether they provide any >> concrete advantages over dumping to FILE objects. Additionally, >> the rest of the compiler uses FILE objects for I/O. How do the >> two stay in sync? > > There are two big advantages. First, you can concisely output a > bunch of stuff without having to worry about types. Very good for > quick coding. > > std::cout << "My variable is " << varnode > << " and its type is " << typnode > << std::endl; > > Second, the streams write to an output stream, which can be a > file or it can be a string buffer. So, output isn't essentially > different from writing chars to a string. > > The primary disadvantage is that to exploit that those advantages, > you need to convert all of the debugging/dumping I/O to use streams. > > And, as a side note, highly formatted output generally is not > much better than printf. For any text that needs to be localized, > I recommend that we stick with what we have. > > -- > Lawrence Crowl
