[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: traces output order

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: traces output order
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:45:39 +0100 (CET)
User-agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a

On Fri, March 21, 2008 13:20, Eric Blake wrote:
> I think I see a way around the problem.  Use the nesting level, which is
> also part of the trace.  For example, autoconf --trace=_AM_COND_IF:'$n-$d'
> can tell you that _AM_COND_IF-2 was probably invoked unquoted within
> _AM_COND_IF-1.  For more assurance, you can also start looking at line
> numbers in the trace to ensure that the subsequent _AM_COND_IF-1 occurs on
> the same or earlier line than _AM_COND_IF-2, rather than the _AM_COND_IF-2
> being nested in an unrelated macro call.

Ah, ok.  Still, this will likely complicate matters quite a bit.
But thanks, this obsoletes my question regarding your patch review! :-)

Hmm, I actually read about the nesting level, but could not make good
sense of it at a glance.

> Hmm.  --trace=MACRO is documented in autoconf/autom4te --help, but not
> - --trace=MACRO[:FORMAT].  Should we document that in more than the
> manual?

Adding [:FORMAT] can't hurt, sure.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]