On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 03:19:39AM -0700, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
On a related note, what is your take on --enable-dbgutil vs. --enable-debug? Are they designed to
do clearly separate things?
IMHO no. Both allow to:
* use assertions
* insert arbitrary debugging code that is only present in 'special'
builds: #ifdef DBG_UTIL and #if OSL_DEBUG_LEVEL > n
* track object lifetime: that's what all these DBG_CHKTHIS, DBG_CHKOBJ,
DBG_NAME etc. in vcl, sfx2, svtools and maybe in a few other places
are for. OSL's counterpart is osl::DebugBase, that is AFAIK only used
at a few places in sd. (And we have valgrind for that anyway,
don't we?)
* profile code (isn't there enough profilers available?)
Do people in general understand the difference?
IMHO the main difference is that DBG_ family is older and bound to
VCL (it has that configuration dialog that can be started by
Ctrl+Shift+Alt+D in non-pro build ... but hardly anyone would know what
to do with it anyway .-)
If either answer is no, should these two concepts be merged?
I'm fully for discarding the old DBG_* tools entirely.
D.
Context
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.