Messages in this thread | | | From | Namhyung Kim <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V9 01/14] perf tools: add debug prints | Date | Wed, 07 Aug 2013 17:50:30 +0900 |
| |
On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 11:13:23 +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote: > On 07/08/13 09:44, Namhyung Kim wrote: >> Things like this likely being ended up with typo. How about this? (not tested) > > And yet there aren't any typos.
Yes, but there's a possibility of adding one later. I have a memory that when Jiri added something similar there's one so we changed to use macros for that.
> >> >> #define __PRINT_ATTR(fmt, cast, field) \ >> fprintf(fp, " %-28s "fmt"\n", #field, cast attr->field) >> >> #define PRINT_ATTR_D32(field) __PRINT_ATTR("%u", ,field) >> #define PRINT_ATTR_X32(field) __PRINT_ATTR("%#x", ,field) >> #define PRINT_ATTR_D64(field) __PRINT_ATTR("%"PRIu64, (uint64_t), field) >> #define PRINT_ATTR_X64(field) __PRINT_ATTR("%#"PRIx64, (uint64_t), field) >> #define PRINT_ATTR2(field1, field2) \ >> fprintf(fp, " %-28s %u %-28s %u\n", \ >> #field1, attr->field1, #field2, attr->field2) > > That does not allow the output to be nicely formatted. In some cases the > field name is just too long and I have abbreviated it.
But yet there aren't any longer than 28. :)
> > When you add in all the variations you just get a macro mess.
I think above 5 is enough but who knows..
Anyway I won't arguing on it strongly, it's just a matter of styles IMHO.
Thanks, Namhyung
| |