On 3/25/2023 11:58 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 11:52 AM Gilbert Barmwater
<gi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Let me see if I've got this. If there was a class, perhaps a
subclass
of outputStream, that implemented a SAY method which would
"collect" the
additional multi-threading information and add it to the argument
that
it receives, then one would only need to create an instance of that
class associated with (presumably) STDERR and then change the
destination of .traceOutput to be that instance. The "enhanced"
trace
lines would appear instead of the standard trace lines. Is that
somewhat correct?
Pretty much spot on.
OK thanks. Some more investigation shows that Trace uses LineOut rather
than Say so the class would need to implement a LINEOUT method rather
than a SAY method.
It would require a couple of enhancements in other places to allow the
additional information to be gathered, but those would be fairly
trivial to implement and also useful for situations other than TRACE.
This solution requires no new TRACE command syntax, and the arguments
about how much information is appropriate to add goes away because any
user can choose to modify the information as they see fit.
A possible implementation would be a file that contains 1) the class
definition, perhaps named "enhancedTrace", with the appropriate lineOut
method and 2) some prolog code that creates an instance of the class and
changes the destination of .traceoutput to that instance. The user
wishing to make use of this capability would then only need to
::requires the file in his program.
Gil
Rick
Gil
On 3/25/2023 8:34 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
> I had one of those AHA moments this morning. The whole question
about
> multithreaded tracing can be quite cleanly resolved by removing the
> question from the TRACE command entirely.
>
> Currently, the trace output is written to the .TRACEOUTPUT monitor.
> With a few small enhancements to already existing classes, it
would be
> possible for any additional information to be added by the
> TRACEOUPUT target. To enable it, one would only need to push a new
> output destination to the monitor. The new destination would add
any
> additional debug information to the trace lines. This is not only
> pretty simple, but it also means any user can customize the trace
> information to their own requirements, though it would be nice to
> supply a couple of builtin alternatives.
>
> The enhancements necessary to do this are pretty simple. The
> StackFrame class already has most of the information you need for
> debugging, but it could use methods to expose a threadid,
instance id,
> and also the current GUARD status in the case of method calls. This
> can be quite easily done, and would provide useful debug
information
> for more than just the trace output. It might be desirable to
add the
> same methods to .Context. I can go either way with that one.
>
> Rick
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
