[cmake-developers] Introducing: message(DEBUG)

[Eric Noulard]

2012/3/5 Brad King <brad.king at kitware.com>:
> On 3/5/2012 10:22 AM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
>>>
>>> Rather than being a conditional version of STATUS I think full stack
>>> information is useful for debugging.  Add to the cmake::MessageType
>>> enumeration a DEBUG value and teach cmake::IssueMessage to handle it.
>>> The output should look like an error or warning but with "CMake Debug"
>>> as the header instead of "CMake Error" or "CMake Warning".
>>
>>
>> I would like to have that switchable in some way. E.g. for Boost_DEBUG I
>> don't have stack traces at the moment, but the contents are the
>> information I need. Stacktraces are useful, but not always.
>
>
> I'm not opposed to a switch but extra verbosity rarely hurts debug
> output IMO.  Even a switch at the call site may be the wrong place
> because it is up to the viewer of the message whether the full
> context is important.  Perhaps the switch can be based on something
> similar to the context filters (see below).
>
>
>>> Once the decision to display the message has a cmListFileBacktrace
>>> instance available for the context then you can have fancier rules
>>> for deciding what messages to display.
>>
>>
>> I don't think I fully understand what you are trying to say here.
>
>
> Elsewhere in this thread discussion proposed filters on messages
> based on their context.  Filters based on the full backtrace
> should be possible and would give a lot of control.

You mean something like a regex?
So that if the stacktrace and/or prefix (and/or the whole message)
matches the regex it is displayed ?

It may cost a lot at runtime?

-- 
Erk
Le gouvernement représentatif n'est pas la démocratie --
http://www.le-message.org