On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 03:19:39AM -0700, Tor Lillqvist wrote: > On a related note, what is your take on --enable-dbgutil vs. --enable-debug? > Are they designed to do clearly separate things?
IMHO no. Both allow to: * use assertions * insert arbitrary debugging code that is only present in 'special' builds: #ifdef DBG_UTIL and #if OSL_DEBUG_LEVEL > n * track object lifetime: that's what all these DBG_CHKTHIS, DBG_CHKOBJ, DBG_NAME etc. in vcl, sfx2, svtools and maybe in a few other places are for. OSL's counterpart is osl::DebugBase, that is AFAIK only used at a few places in sd. (And we have valgrind for that anyway, don't we?) * profile code (isn't there enough profilers available?) > Do people in general understand the difference? IMHO the main difference is that DBG_ family is older and bound to VCL (it has that configuration dialog that can be started by Ctrl+Shift+Alt+D in non-pro build ... but hardly anyone would know what to do with it anyway .-) > If either answer is no, should these two concepts be merged? I'm fully for discarding the old DBG_* tools entirely. D. _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice