On dimanche 18 avril 2021 15:29:30 CEST Philip Leishman wrote:
> Unfortunately the qCDebug calls do not seem to slot seamlessly into the
> code as it is. But worth looking into.
What makes you say that?
Currently, Composition.cpp says:
#define RG_MODULE_STRING "[Composition]"
[...]
//#define DEBUG_BAR_STUFF 1
[...]
#ifdef DEBUG_BAR_STUFF
RG_DEBUG << "calculateBarPositions()";
#endif
What I suggest is that it would say instead
#include <QLoggingCategory>
Q_LOGGING_CATEGORY(DEBUG_COMPOSITION, "net.sf.rosegarden.composition",
QtInfoMsg)
[...]
qCDebug(DEBUG_COMPOSITION) << "calculateBarPositions()";
qCDebug(DEBUG_COMPOSITION) "slots in" to replace RG_DEBUG everywhere in this
file.
Note how the QtInfoMsg argument for the category means that
this debug output is off by default, just like before (because of the ifdef).
But I suggest that even debug output that was on by default, would become
off by default, since it becomes really easy to turn on what one needs.
On 4/17/21 7:44 PM, Ted Felix wrote:
> It does. However gcc's pre-compiled header feature appears to start
> losing its effectiveness at around 10 headers or so. We're at that
> limit already and any tweaking of RG_DEBUG to allow the incorporation
> of more headers is not going to help things.
I don't understand. Do you have more details about the 10 headers thing?
And what's the tweaking of RG_DEBUG? My proposal or something else?
My proposal does not include more headers, in fact less.
--
David Faure, fa...@kde.org, http://www.davidfaure.fr
Working on KDE Frameworks 5
_______________________________________________
Rosegarden-devel mailing list
Rosegarden-devel@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
