> static const char* const priorities[] = {
> "ERROR",
> "WARN",
> "INFO",
> "DEBUG",
> "TRACE"
> };
+1
I usually use these levels.
Typical usage:
ERROR:
Print an error message on returning a value other than
OMPI_SUCCESS (and OMPI_ERR_TEMP_OUT_OF_RESOURCE etc.).
WARN:
This does not indicate an error. But users/developers should
be aware on debugging/tuning. For example, network-level
timeout, hardware queue full, buggy code.
Often used with OMPI_ERR_TEMP_OUT_OF_RESOURCE.
INFO:
Information that may be useful for users and developers.
Not so verbose. Output only on initialization or
object creation etc.
DEBUG:
Information that is useful only for developers.
Not so verbose. Output once per MPI routine call.
TRACE:
Information that is useful only for developers.
Verbose. Output more than once per MPI routine call.
Regards,
KAWASHIMA Takahiro
> so what about :
>
> static const char* const priorities[] = {
> "ERROR",
> "WARN",
> "INFO",
> "DEBUG",
> "TRACE"
> };
>
> and merge debug and trace if there should be only 4
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gilles
>
>
> On Monday, June 8, 2015, Ralph Castain <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Could we maybe narrow it down some? If we are going to do it, let’s not
> > make the mistake of the MCA param system and create so many levels. Nobody
> > can figure out the right gradation as it is just too fine grained.
> >
> > I think Nathan’s proposal is the max that makes sense.
> >
> > I’d also like to see us apply the same logic to the MCA param system.
> > Let’s just define ~4 named levels and get rid of the fine grained numbering.
> >
> >
> > On Jun 8, 2015, at 2:04 AM, Gilles Gouaillardet <[email protected]
> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote:
> >
> > Nathan,
> >
> > i think it is a good idea to use names vs numeric values for verbosity.
> >
> > what about using "a la" log4c verbosity names ?
> > http://sourceforge.net/projects/log4c/
> >
> > static const char* const priorities[] = {
> > "FATAL",
> > "ALERT",
> > "CRIT",
> > "ERROR",
> > "WARN",
> > "NOTICE",
> > "INFO",
> > "DEBUG",
> > "TRACE",
> > "NOTSET",
> > "UNKNOWN"
> > };
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Gilles
> >
> > On 5/30/2015 1:32 AM, Nathan Hjelm wrote:
> >
> > At the moment we have a loosely enforced standard for verbosity
> > values. In general frameworks accept anything in the range 0 - 100 with
> > few exceptions. I am thinking about adding an enumerator for verbosities
> > that will accept values in this range and certain named constants which
> > will match with specific verbosity levels. One possible set: none - 0,
> > low - 25, med - 50, high - 75, max - 100. I am open to any set of named
> > verbosities.
> >
> > Thoughts?
