On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 11:40:06AM -0400, John Kacur wrote: > I'm not saying this is the only legitimate approach, but I would like to > keep the individual tools lightweight in rt-tests, so that you could run > them individually in the embedded space as well as on large machines. Sure, though I still think it would make sense to keep it flexible and have a compile switch if needed. I'd like to avoid additional steps between the measurement and interpretation. Any time we want to add/change a thing, we need to touch more places. Furthermore, if you look at my implementation for the JSON output of jitterdebugger is really small: https://github.com/igaw/jitterdebugger/blob/master/jitterdebugger.c#L158 Adding a XML version for this should be in the same size. If you insist on a single format (XML) that's also okay for me. Python ships all the necessary libraries these days. Though the JSON format is simpler to transform into native data types such as dictionaries and lists, IMO. Anyway, I don't have any strong feeling and have no real problem with one format and a transform script. > So one way to start would be to make sure that the other tools in the > rt-tests suite are capable of generating a similar kind of output, that > could then be processed by other tools. Yes, I'd like to get consistent output from all tools. Though I think we should start from the beginning and getting all command line arguments parser, help texts and man pages consistent.
