similar to: [LLVMdev] Outputting hex in DOUT's

On Aug 4, 2009, at 8:29 AM, Aaron Gray wrote: > How do output hex in DOUT's ? Please don't use DOUT, please use: DEBUG(errs() << stuff); instead. -Chris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090804/cda5fe94/attachment.html>

>>How do output hex in DOUT's ? >Please don't use DOUT, please use: > > DEBUG(errs() << stuff); > >instead. Okay, I will modify my code. But how do I do hexadecimal output ? Aaron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090804/6614cf39/attachment.html>

On Aug 4, 2009, at 2:04 PM, Aaron Gray wrote: > >>How do output hex in DOUT's ? > > >Please don't use DOUT, please use: > > > > DEBUG(errs() << stuff); > > > >instead. > > Okay, I will modify my code. But how do I do hexadecimal output ? > raw_ostream has a write_hex method. O << "foo: "; O.write_hex(42); ...

On Tuesday 04 August 2009 10:46, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Aug 4, 2009, at 8:29 AM, Aaron Gray wrote: > > How do output hex in DOUT's ? > > Please don't use DOUT, please use: > > DEBUG(errs() << stuff); > > instead. I've got some more DOUT-involving patches in the queue. Is this a general design choice that's been made? If so I can change the

On Tuesday 04 August 2009 18:24, Chris Lattner wrote: > The big issue is things like this: > > DOUT << foo.getName() << "\n"; > > When -debug is disable and even when assertions are turned off, > foo.getName() is still called. When you use: Yep, that's a problem. > DEBUG(errs() << foo.getName() << "\n"); > > When

On Tuesday 04 August 2009 17:52, Chris Lattner wrote: > I'd prefer for it to be eliminated, but it is currently used widely. > If your patches don't make it substantially worse, I won't have a > problem with them. Bonus points for removing DOUTs though :) Ok, this is good to know. With some of these patches I will have opportunities to remove DOUTS. What's the

On Aug 4, 2009, at 4:03 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Tuesday 04 August 2009 17:52, Chris Lattner wrote: > >> I'd prefer for it to be eliminated, but it is currently used widely. >> If your patches don't make it substantially worse, I won't have a >> problem with them. Bonus points for removing DOUTs though :) > > Ok, this is good to know. With some of

On Aug 4, 2009, at 2:50 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Tuesday 04 August 2009 10:46, Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Aug 4, 2009, at 8:29 AM, Aaron Gray wrote: >>> How do output hex in DOUT's ? >> >> Please don't use DOUT, please use: >> >> DEBUG(errs() << stuff); >> >> instead. > > I've got some more DOUT-involving patches in

2009/8/5 David Greene <dag at cray.com> > On Tuesday 04 August 2009 18:24, Chris Lattner wrote: > > > The big issue is things like this: > > > > DOUT << foo.getName() << "\n"; > > > > When -debug is disable and even when assertions are turned off, > > foo.getName() is still called. When you use: > > Yep, that's a

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Aaron Gray<aaronngray.lists at googlemail.com> wrote: > So I can say > >     DEBUG( err().write_hex(address); err() << "\n"; ); > > And can I say :- > >     DEBUG( err().write_hex(address) << "\n"; ); > > does it associate like that ? Yes. You can also use format objects from llvm/Support/Format.h, as

On Dec 11, 2009, at 9:03 AM, David Greene wrote: >> >> If you're asking if a new dbgs() might be useful, "yes if specified well". >> If you're asking if you can convert everything to using it, "no". > > I'm not sure what you mean here. It's not ok to convert code under DEBUG() or > #ifndef NDEBUG to use dbgs()? Right. > Then

What replaced the old DOUT? I'm working on sending debug code upstream and one of the things I want to add is circular buffering for debug output. This is a real help when processing large files. So I need a stream that can act differently than errs(). Should I just create one? -Dave

On Friday 11 December 2009 11:35, Chris Lattner wrote: = > > I'm not sure what you mean here. It's not ok to convert code under > > DEBUG() or #ifndef NDEBUG to use dbgs()? > > Right. > > > Then what's the point of providing it? > > I don't know what dbgs does, so I don't know! dbgs() will be a circular-buffering raw_ostream, meaning it saves

On Thursday 10 December 2009 16:30, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hello, David > > > What replaced the old DOUT? > > DEBUG(errs() << foo); > > The reason is quite simple - DOUT in release mode was just /dev/null, > but the functions sending data to it were still called. errs() is no good. I would want to keep errs() printing things out immediately. I need

Hello, David > What replaced the old DOUT? DEBUG(errs() << foo); The reason is quite simple - DOUT in release mode was just /dev/null, but the functions sending data to it were still called. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov. Faculty of Mathematics & Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University.

On Thursday 10 December 2009 17:53, Chris Lattner wrote: > > So I would write the above as: > > > > DEBUG(dbgs() << foo); > > > > Does that sound reasonable? > > If you're asking if a new dbgs() might be useful, "yes if specified well". > If you're asking if you can convert everything to using it, "no". I'm not sure

I've been using the nifty: DEBUG(errs() << "Here is the state of things:\n"); style of optional logging, but ran into an issue where I want to dump a table of information. The problem is getting the columns to line up, since the raw_ostream methods write numbers as variable length. I've worked up a patch that adds two new methods to raw_ostream: /// write_hex -

On May 18, 2012, at 11:50 AM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > I've been using the nifty: > DEBUG(errs() << "Here is the state of things:\n"); > style of optional logging, but ran into an issue where I want to dump a table of information. The problem is getting the columns to line up, since the raw_ostream methods write numbers as variable length.

On Dec 10, 2009, at 1:46 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Thursday 10 December 2009 16:30, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: >> Hello, David >> >>> What replaced the old DOUT? >> >> DEBUG(errs() << foo); >> >> The reason is quite simple - DOUT in release mode was just /dev/null, >> but the functions sending data to it were still called. >

On Dec 11, 2009, at 9:44 AM, David Greene wrote: > On Friday 11 December 2009 11:35, Chris Lattner wrote: > = >>> I'm not sure what you mean here. It's not ok to convert code under >>> DEBUG() or #ifndef NDEBUG to use dbgs()? >> >> Right. >> >>> Then what's the point of providing it? >> >> I don't know what dbgs