IMO, if you just need the output of one command (which is what your patch does), copy & paste is much easier.Eric Pouech wrote:
Jeremy White a écrit :
Changelog: Allow > and >> output redirection on winedbg commands to capture output to a file.
again (it's my bad day for Jer), I think we should stick to gdb commands: see 'set logging' and friends.
Hmm. I've never liked the gdb 'set logging' interface, but I see your point.
I guess the question for winedbg is whether our goal is pure gdb only, or if we want to be able to add things to the interface.
Consider the gdb way: (gdb) set logging overwrite off (gdb) set logging file /tmp/foo (gdb) set logging redirect on (gdb) set logging on Redirecting output to /tmp/foo. (gdb) bt (gdb) set logging off Done logging to /tmp/foo.
vs what I proposed: Wine-dbg> bt >>/tmp/foo
A good use case I can think of is when you started a debugging session (or winedbg has been started after a crash), and you want to capture all the output from now, which what gdb tends to do, which requires a session oriented type of handling (which gdb does) and not command oriented (which your patch does).
A+