[PATCH v4 1/4] Option to print only failing syscalls

[Kohl, Burkhard]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dmitry V. Levin [mailto:ldv at altlinux.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 11:10
> To: Kohl, Burkhard <burkhard.kohl at intel.com>
> Cc: Paul Chaignon <paul.chaignon at gmail.com>; strace-devel at lists.strace.io
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] Option to print only failing syscalls
> 
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 08:53:31AM +0000, Kohl, Burkhard wrote:
> [...]
> > > @@ -1585,7 +1587,7 @@ init(int argc, char *argv[])
> > >  #ifdef ENABLE_STACKTRACE
> > >  	    "k"
> > >  #endif
> > > -	    "a:Ab:cCdDe:E:fFhiI:o:O:p:P:qrs:S:tTu:vVwxX:yz")) != EOF) {
> > > +	    "a:Ab:cCdDe:E:fFhiI:o:O:p:P:qrs:S:tTu:vVwxX:yzZ")) != EOF) {
> > >  		switch (c) {
> > >  		case 'a':
> > >  			acolumn = string_to_uint(optarg);
> > > @@ -1716,6 +1718,9 @@ init(int argc, char *argv[])
> > >  		case 'z':
> > >  			not_failing_only = 1;
> > >  			break;
> > > +		case 'Z':
> > > +			failing_only = 1;
> > > +			break;
> > >  		default:
> > >  			error_msg_and_help(NULL);
> > >  			break;
> >
> > This allows specifying both option -zZ / -Zz, but then the results depend on the
> > sequence in which these options appear on the cmdline,
> 
> I don't think this is the case when the whole patchset is applied.

My testing was done after all 4 patches were applied against 5.1.

> 
> This patch alone is of course incomplete, as well as the second patch
> in the series.  Only the third patch makes things work properly.

Patch  3 was included, see above.

> > e.g.:
> >
> >     wc -l *.trc:
> 
> Sorry, what is *.trc?

I created 5 different trace files ("*.trc") with the prefix reflecting the respective
combination of flags used, i.e.:

        ./strace -tfv -o nozorZ.trc /usr/bin/time -v sleep 1
       ./strace -tfvzZ -o zZ.trc /usr/bin/time -v sleep 1
       ./strace -tfvZz -o Zz.trc /usr/bin/time -v sleep 1
       ...
Line count clearly shows that the output of both -zZ/-Zz variants differ.

> > These two options should be made mutually exclusive
> 
> Why should they?

Behaviour dependent on the order of the switches would be IMHO extremely confusing. 

--
Burkhard
> 
> 
> --
> ldv
Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de
Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Gary Kershaw
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
Registered Office: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928