I don't really want to try and summarise this whole (old) thread, though it seems some of the archives are incomplete. Graham suggested 3 solutions, but: http://www.riscos.info/pipermail/gcc/2007-May/003844.html
I'll put together a "digest" of it if anyone's interested. In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Graham Shaw wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 0 <-> # Unix scheme doesn't account for armageddon! > > 10 <-> # ... or war > > 20 <-> Emergency > > 30 <-> Alert > > 40 <-> Critical # Paraphrase: "critical should be less than 50" > > 50 <-> > > 60 <-> Error > > 70 <-> > > 80 <-> Warning > > 90 <-> > > 100 <-> Notice # This point seems to be fairly well defined > > 120 <-> > > 130 <-> > > 140 <-> > > 150 <-> Information > > 160 <-> > > 170 <-> > > 180 <-> > > 190 <-> > > 200 <-> Debug > > 210 <-> > > 220 <-> > > 230 <-> > > 240 <-> > > 250 <-> > > That too would be reasonable. > > The only point I would make is that informational messages are normally > logged on UNIX systems, which is why I was happy with their being placed > at 120. [snip] > Before we take this further we should find out what the Select syslog > implementation does when logging remotely. Did anything come of this? I don't have the facilities to test Select remote logging. Thanks, Adam -- Adam Richardson Carpe Diem http://www.snowstone.org.uk/riscos/ _______________________________________________ GCCSDK mailing list [email protected] Bugzilla: http://www.riscos.info/bugzilla/index.cgi List Info: http://www.riscos.info/mailman/listinfo/gcc Main Page: http://www.riscos.info/index.php/GCCSDK
