Hi, I really focused to this problem, because I do not have target to duplicate code base only because here missing this “small” things ;)
From my side: - logging API is good idea, it can by nice to have possibilities implement logging to any output (stdout, file, net, etc.) - macros can have some limitation and can be problem in some cases, but it depend how we use it ;) - I do not have problem with it, it is usual way in many other projects. After short look to source code, there is many places which use DEBUG macro (but more places with printf/puts, too). - if we use macros, there can be easy and fast way how to change logging function. Yes, this way can be dirty but switching between simple printf and “log.error” will be without impact to the resources (code size, mem usage and execution time - call the printf directly opposite call the printf inside logging subsystem). - if we use logging subsystem directly, then we will pay for bigger possibilities/flexibility, it has its price (cpu load, mem usage) I more incline to use macros, but implement logging API too. Logging functions can be use as default macro value in big MCUs (or MPUs). Jozef > On 23 Feb 2015, at 11:25, Attilio Dona <attilio.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Ludwig, > > In my simple tinking the macro approach does not exclude the API, just a > pseudo code example: > > > API log_api.h: > > ... > > void log.info <http://log.info/>(const char* fmt, ...); > > ... > > #ifdef ENABLE_INFO > #define LOG_INFO(...) log.info <http://log.info/>(__VA_ARGS__) > #else > #define LOG_INFO(...) > #endif > > > > In RIOT framework and application code use exclusively the macro LOG_INFO, > LOG_DEBUG, ecc. ecc. so you have one more degree of freedom for easy > including/stripping the tracing code from the binary. > > Another advantage with the macro usage is obviously the possibility to change > to another logging implementation in one place instead of modifying all > source lines where log is instrumented. > > Attilio > > > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Ludwig Ortmann <ludwig.ortm...@fu-berlin.de > <mailto:ludwig.ortm...@fu-berlin.de>> wrote: > Hi Attilio, Martine, > > are you suggesting macros are better than APIs + functions? > If so, please explain why and what better means ;) > > Cheers, Ludwig > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 09:26:34AM +0100, Attilio Dona wrote: > > Also for me the MACRO approach has to be considered in a design review, > > eventually in addition to a tracing API layer. > > > > Just to add my bit of experience with RIOT about porting msp430 family on > > new TI/redhat gcc 4.9: > > > > the default nanolib bundled with the toolchain implies a big printf memory > > usage, not suitable for a lot of msp430 chips. > > > > At the moment my solution is to use tinyprintf: > > > > https://github.com/cjlano/tinyprintf <https://github.com/cjlano/tinyprintf> > > > > It works as expected, with some minor modification to suit my port. > > > > Greetings > > Attilio > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Martine Lenders <authmille...@gmail.com > > <mailto:authmille...@gmail.com>> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 thought about this for a long time, too. Though my approach would be > > > with macros and more global (similar to how DEBUG is now). > > > > > > Am 23.02.2015 07:16 schrieb "Ludwig Ortmann" <ludwig.ortm...@fu-berlin.de > > > <mailto:ludwig.ortm...@fu-berlin.de> > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jozef, > > > > > > > > AFAIK there has been no work on a solution so far. > > > > However, I thought about this the other day in the context of the > > > function pointer discussion and would like to propose a "logging" API > > > (maybe there is an issue for that as well somewhere) for `core`, which > > > offers things like `log.info <http://log.info/>(...)` and > > > `log.error(...)`. > > > > Different logging modules can implement this API then, ranging from > > > `printf` over file based logging to network messages. > > > > And then there should also be a `(void) ...` implementation which suits > > > production and ultra low memory needs. > > > > > > > > Opinions? > > > > > > > > Cheers, Ludwig > > > > > > > > Am 23. Februar 2015 03:16:33 MEZ, schrieb Jozef Maslik < > > > ma...@binarylemon.com <mailto:ma...@binarylemon.com>>: > > > > > > > > > >Hi, > > > > > > > > > >Could you please give me information about actual state of "replace > > > > >printf and puts" issues? https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/issues/994 > > > > ><https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/issues/994>, > > > > >https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/issues/641 > > > > ><https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/issues/641> > > > > > > > > > >I’m working with MKL02Z32 which has 4kB RAM. Printf or puts which are > > > > >almost everywhere make a big problem. I removed them from my fork, but > > > > >it is not good or nice solution. > > > > > > > > > >If I miss something important around “printing issue” please correct > > > > >me. > > > > >How others deal with this issue? (printf or puts usage like here, is > > > > >not nessesary in real applications). > > > > > > > > > >Regards, > > > > >Jozef > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > > >devel mailing list > > > > >devel@riot-os.org <mailto:devel@riot-os.org> > > > > >http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > > > ><http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > devel mailing list > > > > devel@riot-os.org <mailto:devel@riot-os.org> > > > > http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > > > <http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > devel mailing list > > > devel@riot-os.org <mailto:devel@riot-os.org> > > > http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > > <http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > devel mailing list > > devel@riot-os.org <mailto:devel@riot-os.org> > > http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > <http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel> > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@riot-os.org <mailto:devel@riot-os.org> > http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > <http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel> > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@riot-os.org > http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@riot-os.org http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
