Re: Glib logging disable patch
- From: Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>
- To: gtk-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Glib logging disable patch
- Date: 02 Jan 2001 15:30:24 -0500
Alexander Larsson <alla lysator liu se> writes:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Tim Janik wrote:
> > apart from that, could you say _why_ disabling all logging
> > functions is so important? is this about saving the the
> > actually logging strings? in that case, couldn't we at least
> > leave something like the stringified file name plus a line
> > number integer to give at least a minor hint as to where
> > something went wrong?
> This is mainly a size thing yes. I've been measuring this a bit today.
> For a non-debug build of glib and gtk+ doing minimal logging (like you
> describe above) saves 39k. Doing no logging at all saves another 19k.
Out of what total size? That's relevant if we are going to worry about
[ I'd expect you should be able to save most of that 19k by doing filename + linenumber as:
__FILE__ ": %d", __LINE__
__FILE__ ": %d" G_STRINGIFY(__LINE__)
as done in G_STRLOC. ]
> Shall i add a minimal logging option, a no logging option, both or none?
My basic opinion here is that I don't think that redefining g_log()
and friends to do nothing is the appropriate way of doing things.
When I call g_log(), I should be able to expect that either it
outputs something or gets redirected through the g_log() system.
g_warning() might be covering multiple things:
- programmer errors
- really bad things happening at runtime (missing files, or whatever)
I think your main original main target was things like the
warning in gtk_text_iter_make_surreal - which are basically
verbose substtutes for a g_return_if_fail() meant to be more
useful for a programmer. So, maybe we should simply have
g_debug_critical ("Invalid text buffer iterator: either the iterator "
That specifically identifies these warnings as targets for chopping.
We could even do it as:
g_debug_critical ("Invalid text buffer iterator",
"either the iterator..");
Providing a summary and an expanded message. But presumably turning
these off would be done along with G_DISABLE_CHECKS, so probably
replacing the error message with simply:
g_error ("Failed at " __FILE__ "%d", __LINE__);
Or even simply abort(), would be fine.
] [Thread Prev