Re: debug vs fvwm_debug_msgs
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 02:35:10PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote: On 7/5/06, seventh guardian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. I have found FVWM_DEBUG_MSGS and DEBUG ifdef's all over the code (as expected). But it seems to me they are allways used at the same time, one defining the other, and thus replaceable just by one of them. Is this true or do they have distinct purposes? This supports my theory (from fvwmsignal.c): (...) #ifdef FVWM_DEBUG_MSGS volatile sig_atomic_t debug_term_signal = 0; #endif (...) #ifdef DEBUG debug_term_signal = sig; #endif (...) So if FVWM_DEBUG_MSGS is not defined then we have an error. But for instance FVWM_DEBUG_MSGS is defined by #ifdef DEBUG on FvwmPager, so.. If they are used for the same purpose, then I'll clean the code up to just use DEBUG. After a bit of dig up, I realised that FVWM_DEBUG_MSGS is the true fvwm debug var (it is defined conditionally on config.h by ./configure). Some modules link to libfvwm.a, which should be already compiled (at least after the first module requiring it). The question is, DEBUG is only defined in the modules, which means that libfvwm.c is never compiled with debug support (see the code snipet on the first mail). Can this be confirmed or am I crazy? :) Actually, there is no plan or design behind all the debug code. It just appeared independently in the places where it was needed at the given time. Nowadays nobody can tell between usefull debug code and stuff that is not needed anymore. The only useful module debug code I am aware of is in the FvwmAuto module. Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: debug vs fvwm_debug_msgs
On 7/6/06, Dominik Vogt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 02:35:10PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote: On 7/5/06, seventh guardian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. I have found FVWM_DEBUG_MSGS and DEBUG ifdef's all over the code (as expected). But it seems to me they are allways used at the same time, one defining the other, and thus replaceable just by one of them. Is this true or do they have distinct purposes? This supports my theory (from fvwmsignal.c): (...) #ifdef FVWM_DEBUG_MSGS volatile sig_atomic_t debug_term_signal = 0; #endif (...) #ifdef DEBUG debug_term_signal = sig; #endif (...) So if FVWM_DEBUG_MSGS is not defined then we have an error. But for instance FVWM_DEBUG_MSGS is defined by #ifdef DEBUG on FvwmPager, so.. If they are used for the same purpose, then I'll clean the code up to just use DEBUG. After a bit of dig up, I realised that FVWM_DEBUG_MSGS is the true fvwm debug var (it is defined conditionally on config.h by ./configure). Some modules link to libfvwm.a, which should be already compiled (at least after the first module requiring it). The question is, DEBUG is only defined in the modules, which means that libfvwm.c is never compiled with debug support (see the code snipet on the first mail). Can this be confirmed or am I crazy? :) Actually, there is no plan or design behind all the debug code. It just appeared independently in the places where it was needed at the given time. Nowadays nobody can tell between usefull debug code and stuff that is not needed anymore. The only useful module debug code I am aware of is in the FvwmAuto module. Hum so what's the wise step? I'm thinking of doing a clean up, but I'm not sure on wich policy to follow.. Renato Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFErORgmeSprTOr4tgRAo6iAKDnJArXWLeZQZBGuFW4RhWzPmchXQCg4FcD 1ZMpTXNrw5dLakifhi2KKJ4= =ULOv -END PGP SIGNATURE-
debug code cleanup patch #1
Hi. This is a debug code cleanup patch: It removes most of the FvwmPager debug code (very old), also removing useless debug code from fvwmsignal.c and fvmwsignal.h. It also removes an unused #define from libs/PictureUtils.c, which Olivier forgot to remove :P I've only put safe changes on this patch, but please check if it doesn't remove useful code (or if I was too conservative.. who knows?). Cheers, Renato cleanup_patch Description: Binary data
Re: debug code cleanup patch #1
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 05:20:14PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote: Hi. This is a debug code cleanup patch: It removes most of the FvwmPager debug code (very old), also removing useless debug code from fvwmsignal.c and fvmwsignal.h. It also removes an unused #define from libs/PictureUtils.c, which Olivier forgot to remove :P I've only put safe changes on this patch, but please check if it doesn't remove useful code (or if I was too conservative.. who knows?). The patch looks fine. I'll commit it. By the way, do you have commit privileges for CVS? Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: debug vs fvwm_debug_msgs
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 04:22:28PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote: On 7/6/06, Dominik Vogt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 02:35:10PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote: On 7/5/06, seventh guardian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. I have found FVWM_DEBUG_MSGS and DEBUG ifdef's all over the code (as expected). But it seems to me they are allways used at the same time, one defining the other, and thus replaceable just by one of them. Is this true or do they have distinct purposes? This supports my theory (from fvwmsignal.c): (...) #ifdef FVWM_DEBUG_MSGS volatile sig_atomic_t debug_term_signal = 0; #endif (...) #ifdef DEBUG debug_term_signal = sig; #endif (...) So if FVWM_DEBUG_MSGS is not defined then we have an error. But for instance FVWM_DEBUG_MSGS is defined by #ifdef DEBUG on FvwmPager, so.. If they are used for the same purpose, then I'll clean the code up to just use DEBUG. After a bit of dig up, I realised that FVWM_DEBUG_MSGS is the true fvwm debug var (it is defined conditionally on config.h by ./configure). Some modules link to libfvwm.a, which should be already compiled (at least after the first module requiring it). The question is, DEBUG is only defined in the modules, which means that libfvwm.c is never compiled with debug support (see the code snipet on the first mail). Can this be confirmed or am I crazy? :) Actually, there is no plan or design behind all the debug code. It just appeared independently in the places where it was needed at the given time. Nowadays nobody can tell between usefull debug code and stuff that is not needed anymore. The only useful module debug code I am aware of is in the FvwmAuto module. Hum so what's the wise step? I'm thinking of doing a clean up, but I'm not sure on wich policy to follow.. I think you're taking the right path by creating small individual patches that remove some of the debug code. I'll comment on your first patch in that thread. Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: debug code cleanup patch #1
On 7/6/06, Dominik Vogt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 05:20:14PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote: Hi. This is a debug code cleanup patch: It removes most of the FvwmPager debug code (very old), also removing useless debug code from fvwmsignal.c and fvmwsignal.h. It also removes an unused #define from libs/PictureUtils.c, which Olivier forgot to remove :P I've only put safe changes on this patch, but please check if it doesn't remove useful code (or if I was too conservative.. who knows?). The patch looks fine. I'll commit it. By the way, do you have commit privileges for CVS? No, I don't.. Am I ready for it? :) Renato Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFErWDOmeSprTOr4tgRAkplAJ96hAFJH5Q0haNuVdIjaXtPW98/BgCeKsO3 ED8VfM9VdvXGaJ4UPrNGFQ0= =1P8S -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: debug code cleanup patch #1
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 08:23:50PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote: On 7/6/06, Dominik Vogt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 05:20:14PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote: Hi. This is a debug code cleanup patch: It removes most of the FvwmPager debug code (very old), also removing useless debug code from fvwmsignal.c and fvmwsignal.h. It also removes an unused #define from libs/PictureUtils.c, which Olivier forgot to remove :P I've only put safe changes on this patch, but please check if it doesn't remove useful code (or if I was too conservative.. who knows?). The patch looks fine. I'll commit it. By the way, do you have commit privileges for CVS? No, I don't.. Am I ready for it? :) I think so :-) Any second vote for Renato? Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
CVS domivogt: * Applied debug cleanup patches.
CVSROOT:/home/cvs/fvwm Module name:fvwm Changes by: domivogt06/07/06 16:08:31 Modified files: . : ChangeLog NEWS libs : PictureUtils.c fvwmsignal.c fvwmsignal.h modules/FvwmPager: FvwmPager.c Log message: * Applied debug cleanup patches.
Re: debug code cleanup patch #1
On Thursday 06 July 2006 16:19, Dominik Vogt wrote: On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 08:23:50PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote: On 7/6/06, Dominik Vogt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The patch looks fine. I'll commit it. By the way, do you have commit privileges for CVS? No, I don't.. Am I ready for it? :) I think so :-) Any second vote for Renato? I'll cast a second . Cheers, Bob
Re: debug code cleanup patch #1
Bob Woodside [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thursday 06 July 2006 16:19, Dominik Vogt wrote: On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 08:23:50PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote: On 7/6/06, Dominik Vogt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The patch looks fine. I'll commit it. By the way, do you have commit privileges for CVS? No, I don't.. Am I ready for it? :) I think so :-) Any second vote for Renato? I'll cast a second . Third. Renato, if you haven't seen it already, check the Fvwm web site Developer section for getting commit access. -- Dan Espen E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debug code cleanup patch #1
On 7/7/06, Dan Espen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bob Woodside [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thursday 06 July 2006 16:19, Dominik Vogt wrote: On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 08:23:50PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote: On 7/6/06, Dominik Vogt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The patch looks fine. I'll commit it. By the way, do you have commit privileges for CVS? No, I don't.. Am I ready for it? :) I think so :-) Any second vote for Renato? I'll cast a second . Third. Renato, if you haven't seen it already, check the Fvwm web site Developer section for getting commit access. Ok :) I'll send the login and encrypted passwd to Jason. Cheers Renato -- Dan Espen E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
