Re: [PATCH v5 05/17] xenctx: Add command line option -D (--decode-as-ascii)

[Don Slutz <dslutz@verizon.com>]

On 03/21/14 10:38, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 15:06 -0400, Don Slutz wrote:
>> If specified, output ascii version of stack also.
> I suppose this is optional because the result is >100 chars wide?
> Otherwise making it unconditional would be a nobrainer.

No not 100, but it does exceed 80 and from a previous email:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [PATCH v2 03/12] xenctx: Output ascii version of stack also.
Date: 	Thu, 7 Nov 2013 12:43:14 +0000
From: 	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Organization: 	Citrix Systems, Inc.
To: 	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
CC: 	Don Slutz <dslutz@verizon.com>, Don Slutz <Don@CloudSwitch.com>, 
"George Dunlap" <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, Ian Jackson 
<ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, Stefano Stabellini 
<stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, xen-devel 
<xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>



On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 08:09 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 06.11.13 at 21:08, Don Slutz <dslutz@verizon.com> wrote:
>
> Why? I personally don't see a need - there's rarely much useful
> ASCII data on the stack.

This is true IME

> So afaic: If at all, then only via command
> line option defaulting to off.

Well, assuming it doesn't make the output >80 columns (which I can't
tell from here) it seems harmless enough?

...



>
>>                   printf(" ");
>>                   print_stack_word(word, width);
>>                   stack += width;
>>               }
>> +            if ( xenctx.decode_as_ascii )
>> +            {
>> +                /*
>> +                 * Line up ascii output if less than bytes_per_line
>> +                 * were printed.
>> +                 */
>> +                for (k = j; k < xenctx.bytes_per_line / width; k++)
>> +                    printf(" %*s", width * 2, "");
> Avoid the loop by using width*2*((xenctx.bytes_per_line / width)-j) ?
> (or whatever the sums are)

I could, but you also need to include the test some how (and as an "if"
is almost the same).  And for code that is only ever run a few times in
a developer tool, I do not see that the speed or output "breakage" make
a big difference.  But if you really want this...

> At some point in the future perhaps
> https://plus.google.com/111319147897550904359/posts/cZ6QVUAMAhT
> will be widespread enoguh that we can all stop with this sort of
> thing...

Well, I wish them good luck.  Getting the right terminal width to happen
100% of the time when going through many remote hops, just does not
happen to me. (local stuff is just so much simpler.)

Also getting a table to look right with variable spacing and variable sized
"characters" is very hard.  Last I knew the technical writers
still are hand adjusting things even now.

    -Don Slutz

> Ian
>