Conversation
| if (verbose) {DTPRINT(_("z_stream for data (%d): "), 2); print_z_stream(&mystream);} | ||
| int ret = compressbuff(&mystream, myzBuff, &myzbuffUsed, myBuff, (size_t)(ch-myBuff)); | ||
| if (verbose) {DTPRINT(_("z_stream for data (%d): "), 3); print_z_stream(&mystream);} | ||
| if (verbose) {DTPRINT(_("z_stream for data (%d): "), 3); print_z_stream(mystream);} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
question: supposing this works, would you then aim to remove all the extra verbose printing for tracing in the next release? (less maintenance overhead / tidier code vs. ease of setting up the in-depth tracing should a similar error recur later on)
curious your thinking
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes will just remove the extra tracing. can always get it back from the history should we need it again
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #4845 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 99.47% 99.47%
=======================================
Files 73 73
Lines 14589 14592 +3
=======================================
+ Hits 14512 14515 +3
Misses 77 77
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
2 participants
Closes #4099
Allocates the set of structs before the parallel region to avoid the move on Solaris
Adds the extra trace point mentioned in #4099, in case this theory is wrong
Will remove the word "should" in the news item after release, if it is successful.