On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 09:09 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> That's a good idea! The level can also change depending on the caller
> (e.g., use eCAP level if eCAP code is calling the shared code).
Yes, ideally there would be a transaction state tied to the debug,
allowing expressions like "comm I/O
On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 12:28 +0100, Kinkie wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Alex Rousskov
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Should I use the same debugging sections for ICAP, eCAP, and the
> > code they share? Or should we have three distinct debugging sections for
> > those three area
Alex Rousskov wrote:
Hello,
Should I use the same debugging sections for ICAP, eCAP, and the
code they share? Or should we have three distinct debugging sections for
those three areas?
I think 2 areas for the unique code at least. Preferrably numerically close.
How much of the shared code
On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 22:14 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> Should I use the same debugging sections for ICAP, eCAP, and the
> code they share? Or should we have three distinct debugging sections for
> those three areas?
I think using the same is appropriate, unless you think there will be a
ne
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Alex Rousskov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Should I use the same debugging sections for ICAP, eCAP, and the
> code they share? Or should we have three distinct debugging sections for
> those three areas?
IMO the most intuitive approach would be to
Hello,
Should I use the same debugging sections for ICAP, eCAP, and the
code they share? Or should we have three distinct debugging sections for
those three areas?
Thank you,
Alex.
