Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>> +void trace_run_command(const struct child_process *cp)
>> +{
>> + struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
>> +
>> + if (!prepare_trace_line(__FILE__, __LINE__,
>> + &trace_default_key, &buf))
>> + return;
>
> I think technically this should be TRACE_CONTEXT instead of __FILE__,
> though I wonder if anybody has ever set that (there is not even a
> Makefile knob for it, so you'd have to -DTRACE_CONTEXT manually).
Oooh. Today I learned a new thing ;-)
> I actually wonder if it would be nicer to keep this whole thing in
> run-command.c, and just prepare it all in a buffer. That's basically
> what we're doing here anyway, and then we could get rid of the funny
> __FILE__ stuff. I.e., something like:
>
> struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
>
> if (!trace_want(&trace_default_key))
> return;
>
> strbuf_addf(&buf, "trace: run_command: ");
> sq_quote_argv_pretty(&buf, cp->argv);
>
> trace_printf("%s", buf.buf);
> strbuf_release(&buf);
>
> AFAICT we aren't really using any internals of trace.c in our new
> function. That would get rid of this __FILE__ bit, it would eliminate
> the need for trace.h to know about "struct child_process", and it would
> mean the output still says "run-command.c" in it.
Sounds nice.
