RE: [boost] Re: Logging Library -- Formal Review Request
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Peter Simons Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 5:55 AM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: [boost] Re: Logging Library -- Formal Review Request
Patrick Bennett writes:
Having worked on quite a few large-scale commercial software products using an extensive logging framework for quite a few years now, I can attest that, short of embedded deployment, there is almost never a reason to compile out tracing code.
Except for, when the tracing code comes with serious performance penalties. Then you really want to be able to compile a version with all the debugging and tracing statements removed.
Nope, in the system we use, the tracing code isn't even called unless tracing is actually enabled (which can be done in realtime from other processes). The only overhead incurred for any logging statement currently not active is little more than a lookup, compare, and jump.
From the discussion I've seen, the proposed library should work the same way.
Patrick Bennett
Nope, in the system we use, the tracing code isn't even called unless tracing is actually enabled (which can be done in realtime from other processes). The only overhead incurred for any logging statement currently not active is little more than a lookup, compare, and jump.
From the discussion I've seen, the proposed library should work the same way.
Yup, it does work the same way -- except that for my lib there's not even a lookup. Every log internally is a reference to a variable of boost::log::logger type, which contains a pointer to a boost::log::logger_impl, which contains a boolean variable. Best, John -- John Torjo, Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal -- "Win32 GUI Generics" -- generics & GUI do mix, after all -- http://www.torjo.com/win32gui/ -v1.6.3 (Resource Splitter) -- http://www.torjo.com/cb/ - Click, Build, Run!
participants (2)
-
Bennett, Patrick -
John Torjo