Re: [ft-devel] Logging library proposal

[Werner LEMBERG]

Sorry for the late reply.


> Yes, it is really better if the user is allowed to specify what
> format is required.  Like someone who just wants to know the
> location of a function in the project, may not require time.  This
> will be more convenient if we have a dedicated log-config input
> file.

Hmm.  We shouldn't make the mistake of adding too much features.
Please remember that FreeType's logging capabilities have *zero* value
for normal applications since it isn't compiled by default (and this
will definitely stay this way).

> This page
> https://github.com/msly/codemanage/blob/master/A%20useful%20log4cpp%20example.cpp
> is dedicated to log4cpp, an excellent logging library for c++.  I
> have used it myself for my course projects.  Even I want freetype's
> log-config to be as flexible as this.  But providing such config
> file may change the logger considerably.  It will be good if we can
> really include all features in our project.  That owns a separate
> set of important decisions to be discussed with you.

I think one – or maybe two – environment variables are fully
sufficient to control logging and tracing.  Honestly, I don't like
adding a config file.

>>  foo:3   blablabla
>
> I will do that.  Then, for the time being, should I go with creating
> separate #define for line numbers and files?

It's not clear to me what you mean.  Please elaborate.

> I could not find CI tools for cgit.  I will search for more.  It
> would have been a trivial task if freetype had an official
> repository on github.com

We have an `official' site at github:

  https://github.com/freetype

Armin, Nikhil, wasn't there a plan to set up a FreeType mirror?  Could
you do that?

> Regarding profiling tools, I have used gprof and I think it will be
> fairly good for us.  But that has to be automated.  I would like to
> contribute there too.  There exist other profiling tools like
> gperftools
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4141307/c-and-c-source-code-profiling-tools
> . But IMO, gprof is good.

Whatever :-)  Every improvement is highly welcomed!

> Coverage tools: I have used gcov and I like it.  Again, if freetype
> had an official github repo, we would have automated coverage with
> coverall.

The FreeType fuzzer already provides some coverage analysis, see

  https://github.com/freetype/freetype2-testing/tree/master/fuzzing

> I meant something like this
> https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/async.html :
> asynchronous logging.

Thanks.  I think this is overkill, for the same reasons as mentioned
above.


    Werner