[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.
Cheers,
Ralf