Message ID | 20200124033436.81097-7-emilyshaffer@google.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | add git-bugreport tool | expand |
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 04:40, <emilyshaffer@google.com> wrote: > +#else > + > +static inline void get_compiler_info(struct strbuf *info) > +{ > + strbuf_addstr(info, "get_compiler_info() not implemented"); Maybe "no compiler info available" (or s/ available//, or s/available/reported/), or something else more human-readable? > +} > + > +#endif > + > +#endif /* COMPILER_H */ Martin
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:21:39PM +0100, Martin Ågren wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 04:40, <emilyshaffer@google.com> wrote: > > +#else > > + > > +static inline void get_compiler_info(struct strbuf *info) > > +{ > > + strbuf_addstr(info, "get_compiler_info() not implemented"); > > Maybe "no compiler info available" (or s/ available//, or > s/available/reported/), or something else more human-readable? Hm. I envisioned the target audience for this as "Git developers" (and that's why I didn't mark the unimplemented string for translation); Git developers know exactly what "get_compiler_info() not implemented" means. But I suppose it's just as easy to grep for one string as the other. I am hesitant to say "no info available" or "no info reported" when I'm certain there is some environment variable set at build time which contains the info we'd want to show here; it really is just a question of some Git developer having put in the time to implement this function. So, I think I will leave it. Thanks for your suggestions. - Emily
On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 23:51, Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:21:39PM +0100, Martin Ågren wrote: > > On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 04:40, <emilyshaffer@google.com> wrote: > > > +#else > > > + > > > +static inline void get_compiler_info(struct strbuf *info) > > > +{ > > > + strbuf_addstr(info, "get_compiler_info() not implemented"); > > > > Maybe "no compiler info available" (or s/ available//, or > > s/available/reported/), or something else more human-readable? > > Hm. I envisioned the target audience for this as "Git developers" (and > that's why I didn't mark the unimplemented string for translation); Git > developers know exactly what "get_compiler_info() not implemented" > means. But I suppose it's just as easy to grep for one string as the > other. > > I am hesitant to say "no info available" or "no info reported" when I'm > certain there is some environment variable set at build time which > contains the info we'd want to show here; it really is just a question > of some Git developer having put in the time to implement this function. > > So, I think I will leave it. Thanks for your suggestions. Ok, that makes sense. Martin
diff --git a/bugreport.c b/bugreport.c index 720c91e1bd..818ccb385c 100644 --- a/bugreport.c +++ b/bugreport.c @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ #include "strbuf.h" #include "time.h" #include "help.h" +#include "compat/compiler.h" static void get_system_info(struct strbuf *sys_info) { @@ -26,6 +27,10 @@ static void get_system_info(struct strbuf *sys_info) uname_info.release, uname_info.version, uname_info.machine); + + strbuf_addstr(sys_info, "compiler info: "); + get_compiler_info(sys_info); + strbuf_complete_line(sys_info); } static const char * const bugreport_usage[] = { diff --git a/compat/compiler.h b/compat/compiler.h new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..bda5098e1b --- /dev/null +++ b/compat/compiler.h @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +#ifndef COMPILER_H +#define COMPILER_H + +#include "git-compat-util.h" +#include "strbuf.h" + +#ifdef __GLIBC__ +#include <gnu/libc-version.h> + +static inline void get_compiler_info(struct strbuf *info) +{ + strbuf_addf(info, "glibc: %s", gnu_get_libc_version()); +} + +#else + +static inline void get_compiler_info(struct strbuf *info) +{ + strbuf_addstr(info, "get_compiler_info() not implemented"); +} + +#endif + +#endif /* COMPILER_H */