httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexander Lazic <al-httpd...@none.at>
Subject Re: debug apache
Date Sat, 17 Jun 2006 21:40:07 GMT
On Sam 17.06.2006 13:14, Nick Kew wrote:
>On Saturday 17 June 2006 09:47, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>> On 06/17/2006 08:57 AM, Alexander Lazic wrote:
>> > On Sam 17.06.2006 00:54, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>> >> From my current point of view the answer is: No, this is not
>> >> possible out of the box.
>> >> It may be possible if you modify the hook macros.
>> >
>> > And do you think that the developer would accept a patch for apache
>> > 2.x and would apply it?
>>
>> Depends on the patch :-). Please take into account that these macros
>> are part of apr-util. So this discussion belongs to
>> dev@apr.apache.org.
>> Currently I have not made any thoughts how these macros could be
>> modified in a way such that they play together with httpd logging.
>
>I think you'd be far better off with a generic trace such as strace.
>They're made for precisely this kind of thing.

Sorry but i'am not with you at this point, because this tools are only
the last line for debugging from my point of view.

All what i can see with this tools, depend on the tool, which file is
opend/closed, which fd is handled, libcalls, memcalls, and so on.

This tools don't tell me:

---
I'am at core_...() with $url.
I'am at mod_XYZ() called from mod_zyx()
In buffer asd you have value abc
mod_XYZ() is called from core_...() because config line 'Alias / /index.htm'
---

The only think to see this is:

a.) add logging options
b.) debug with some debugger, gdb,  mdb, ... and compile httpd with -g

If i have oversee some points please tell me my fault.

>Having said that. what you could do with the hooks is to wrap them in
>functions that add logging.  To do that with apache logging would
>require the APR macros to be masked out.  Since you'd be adding
>overhead to everything the server does, you'll never get it accepted
>into the main source tree, unless you can at the very least make it
>conditionally compile.

Well as i read this right there is *no* intention to add such a
debugging/error searching option nor add a patch, if any exists.

Regards and thanks for answers

Alex

Mime
View raw message