On Mon, 7 Sep 2020, Daniel Wagner wrote: > 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. If you just read a text stream like rteval does, and store in a native data type, then it is trivial to output any data format. However, your implementation for your jitterdebugger is truly small, I don't want to stomp on your creativity, so spin off a git branch and go to it. I can be persuaded. John
