Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

What about providing --no-opt for multi purposes? #743

Open
honggyukim opened this issue May 4, 2019 · 3 comments
Open

What about providing --no-opt for multi purposes? #743

honggyukim opened this issue May 4, 2019 · 3 comments

Comments

@honggyukim
Copy link
Collaborator

There are many needs to add more options to switch off some of options.
Here are the list of --no- prefixed options.

$ uftrace --help | grep "\-\-no\-"
      --no-comment           Don't show comments of returned functions
      --no-event             Disable (default) events
      --no-libcall           Don't trace library function calls
      --no-merge             Don't merge leaf functions
      --no-pager             Do not use pager
      --no-pltbind           Do not bind dynamic symbols (LD_BIND_NOT)
      --no-randomize-addr    Disable ASLR (Address Space Layout Randomization)

We could provide a new option to embrace all those with --no-opt=OPT[,OPT,...] and it can be used as follows.

$ uftrace replay --no-opt=event,libcall,pager

It's the same as following options:

$ uftrace replay --no-event --no-libcall --no-pager

Taking advantage of general purpose --no-opt, we can better add more switches without worrying about increasing the number of options.

The possible candidates are as follows:

--no-opt=OPT could be renamed to any other such as --no=OPT or --turn-off=OPT or we can also reuse --disable to --disable=OPT.

@honggyukim honggyukim changed the title What about providing --no-opt for multi purposes What about providing --no-opt for multi purposes? May 4, 2019
@honggyukim
Copy link
Collaborator Author

--opt-off=OPT could be a good candidate as well if --opt-on=OPT is also planed to be used.

@namhyung
Copy link
Owner

namhyung commented May 8, 2019

I'm considering to change option parse code, maybe we can discuss it later.

@honggyukim
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I also think it'd be better. Thanks.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants