[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Libcdio-devel] Ready for testing: libcdio branch trackno-higher-one

From: Thomas Schmitt
Subject: Re: [Libcdio-devel] Ready for testing: libcdio branch trackno-higher-one with .cue files
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 18:47:57 +0100


> Merged in now. Thanks.

I will next try to get my test tested ... "make check" ?

> Would a --versose or --log-level option on the  cd-info command work?

A more vorbose documentation of its option "-d" would suffice.
Finally debugging level 4 made the INFO message visible.

But in what situation does it make sense to reject the .CUE file and
telling the reason as INFO, whereas WARN is used when the .CUE file was
accepted and a tolerable problem gets reported ?

There is a difference between the two message outputs

  INFO: Track number out of range 1 to 99, got 00

which is followed by premature program end, and

  ++ WARN: Track number out of sequence. Expected 2, got 5

after which the program goes on, giving the track the number 2.

Both come from cdio_log(log_level) called in the same function
parse_cuefile(). But they get emitted with log_level 2 and 3, respectively.

This is because the checking for .CUE file uses a different log_level
than the reading of the .CUE file. The warning gets emitted only if
the .CUE file data shall be remembered. In this case the first function
parameter "cd" is not NULL.
parse_cuefile() makes a difference in log levels, depending on "cd":

  cdio_log_level_t log_level = (NULL == cd) ? CDIO_LOG_INFO : CDIO_LOG_WARN;

cdio_is_cuefile() calls for checking

      if (parse_cuefile(NULL, psz_cue_name))

_init_bincue() calls for reading

      if ( !parse_cuefile(p_env, p_env->psz_cue_name) ) return false;

At least for the purpose of track number sanity, this difference in
log_level is inappropriate.

Have a nice day :)


reply via email to

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