Scope-based SymbExLogger Take 2#562
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Member
Author
|
All Silicon tests pass locally |
mschwerhoff
approved these changes
Jul 7, 2021
mschwerhoff
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good, thank you.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Introduces the same changes as #475.
Apparently, the changes introduced by the other PR have been added to master in commit 85ecb64 but apparently undone by accident in the next commit 73f7fd1.
This PR is almost identical except:
writeLogFileseems to no longer exist in the Silver codebase and thus the SymbExLogger will only useideModeAdvanced(instead of looking at both flags) to decide whether it should be enabled or notlogConfig$tfrom$t@6@01symbLogTest_linkedListMinimal: previously, a branch has been logged asBranch $t@8@01 != Null:and nowadays it isBranch First:($t@6@01) != Null:@aterga: these are the changes performed as part of my Master's thesis. I cannot recall whether we still support the old logging format and/or whether/how clients would need to be adapted. Could you maybe give it a try?