| 1 |
On 13 June 2013 13:35, Dennis Lan (dlan) <dennis.yxun@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> HI ALL: |
| 4 |
> Is it ok to introduce USE=dmalloc global flag? description as following |
| 5 |
> "dmalloc - Enable debugging with the dmalloc library" |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> current consumers: |
| 8 |
> 1) net-fs/autofs |
| 9 |
> 2) net-misc/directvnc |
| 10 |
> 3) sci-biology/yass |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> also |
| 13 |
> 4) app-admin/conserver |
| 14 |
> 5) net-nds/ypbind |
| 15 |
> 6) net-fs/samba |
| 16 |
> 7) net-analyzer/scli |
| 17 |
> 8) net-analyzer/traceproto |
| 18 |
> 6) net-misc/siproxd |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> use dmalloc but controlled under USE=debug |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Dennis Lan |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
Questions for clarity: |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
1. I haven't used dmalloc before, what does this use flag do for me? |
| 28 |
2. How does this use flag change the built binaries? does it: |
| 29 |
a) make no user visible changes, but adds code instrumentation paths |
| 30 |
which can only be seen/understood with a special visualiser |
| 31 |
b) add output to TTY for the built binary? etc. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I'm not arguing against global USE for it, I'm just asking for a USE |
| 34 |
description that is more meaningful. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
ie, alternatives might be: "Add runtime debug output via the dmalloc |
| 37 |
library" or "Add runtime instrumentation for the dmalloc debugger", or |
| 38 |
something like that. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Because if it were case a), then I might be inclined to turn it on |
| 41 |
arbitrarily ( depending on how much it impacts performance ), just in case |
| 42 |
I happen to need it one day. But if it were case b), I'd be inclined not |
| 43 |
to turn it on arbitrarily, because I can see that would be irritating =) |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
Kent |
Archives