Re: trace/events: DECLARE vs DEFINE semantic

[Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>]

* H. Peter Anvin (hpa@zytor.com) wrote:
> On 12/02/2009 02:57 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >>
> >> TRACE_CLASS - Declares a class
> >> TRACE_CLASS_EVENT - defines an event for said class
> >> TRACE_EVENT - Declares a class and defines an event (as is today)
> > 
> > Yep, it looks good! It's self-descriptive and don't require to explain
> > what the thing is doing each time we refer to it. (however I feel a bit
> > sad for Fred, Wilma and Barney) ;)
> > 
> 
> Although you have to admit it's a bit confusing that:
> 
> TRACE_EVENT = TRACE_CLASS + TRACE_CLASS_EVENT
> 
> ... as opposed to ...
> 
> TRACE_CLASS_EVENT = TRACE_CLASS + TRACE_EVENT
> 
> 	-hpa

Then I would say that TRACE_EVENT should probably not have the
side-effect of declaring a globally-reuseable class. Maybe under the
hood it could create a privately-named class, but I don't see how it can
be re-used by following TRACE_CLASS_EVENT without causing confusion.

I'd go for:

TRACE_CLASS - Declares/defines a class
TRACE_CLASS_EVENT - Declares/defines an event for said class
TRACE_EVENT - Declares/defines a private class and declares/defines an event

Mathieu



> 
> -- 
> H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
> I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.
> 

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68