qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 08/13] error: don't set sep when print progname


From: Wenchao Xia
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 08/13] error: don't set sep when print progname
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:31:37 +0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1

于 2013/10/18 19:40, Markus Armbruster 写道:
> Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Il 18/10/2013 03:11, Wenchao Xia ha scritto:
>>> The behavior to set sep brings trouble to modification later,
>>> the logic is not changed by add tailing space in fprintf().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wenchao Xia <address@hidden>
>>> ---
>>>  util/qemu-error.c |    5 ++---
>>>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/util/qemu-error.c b/util/qemu-error.c
>>> index 0ccd3e9..d1e858a 100644
>>> --- a/util/qemu-error.c
>>> +++ b/util/qemu-error.c
>>> @@ -161,8 +161,7 @@ static void error_print_loc(void)
>>>      const char *const *argp;
>>>  
>>>      if (!cur_mon && progname) {
>>> -        fprintf(stderr, "%s:", progname);
>>> -        sep = " ";
>>> +        fprintf(stderr, "%s: ", progname);
>>>      }
>>>      switch (cur_loc->kind) {
>>>      case LOC_CMDLINE:
>>> @@ -181,7 +180,7 @@ static void error_print_loc(void)
>>>          error_printf(" ");
>>>          break;
>>>      default:
>>> -        error_printf("%s", sep);
>>> +        break;
>>>      }
>>>  }
>>>  
>>>
>> This changes behavior for LOC_FILE.
>>
>> Before:
>>
>> $ cat xyz.cfg
>> [device "abc"]
>>         driver = def
>> $ qemu-system-x86_64 -readconfig xyz.cfg
>> qemu-system-x86_64:xyz.cfg:2: parse error
>>
>> After:
>>
>> $ qemu-system-x86_64 -readconfig xyz.cfg
>> qemu-system-x86_64: xyz.cfg:2: parse error
>>
>> Could even be an improvement, but you need to note it in the commit message.
> No, it is not an improvement.  The old format matches exactly how other
> report errors with location, e.g. jade.  Please leave it that way,
>
I'll check whether there is way to leave the logic as it was.




reply via email to

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