Am 15.02.2013 14:14, schrieb Alexander Graf: > In parallel to the completely disastrous user experience when using trace > points. Debug printfs are easy and understandable. Tracepoints are not. > > However, how about we take this one gradually?
+1, I'm looking for a minimally invasive solution that addresses my compilation-test needs. It doesn't need to be the final bells-and-whistles version. :) > If all debug prints in all files do an > > #ifdef DEBUG > static const debug_enabled = 1; > #else > static const debug_enabled = 0; > #endif > > then Stefan can probably add a -DDEBUG to a specific c file through Makefile > magic if he wants to do iPXE-style debugging. And if you're - like me - more > happy with local #define DEBUG, then you can do that as well. Could you please clarify: Are you suggesting to consistently use just DEBUG in place of the various FOO_DEBUGs? That would enable all debug output for --enable-debug builds, wouldn't it? (Or am I mixing that up with NDEBUG in the opposite case...?) Or just having a static const variable to avoid #ifdef FOO_DEBUG for statements as done in openpic code? Andreas > > I would definitely oppose moving to tracepoints. > > > Alex > -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
