Open joelsmithTT opened 3 weeks ago
Related: https://github.com/tenstorrent/tt-umd/issues/160
This is not intended to be merged, but to gather some input about how we want to use this.
A log file for reviewing program trace, can be invaluable, especially debugging release builds.
If spdlog use grows beyond UMD, do we want something that says "UMD" in every message that we emit (at least to stdout/stderr) for filtering purposes? (If we write to our own file, this isn't needed)
Yes, we should have an identifier, if nothing else to differentiate our log messages from other things that are printed to the screen.
Existing logger have a notion of type - Metal has a bunch, UMD is almost all "LogSiliconDriver" although the logging macros are inconsistent here. I don't think we need this in the way Metal is using it.
I've not wrapped my head around why they do this yet.
Existing logger have a notion of type - Metal has a bunch, UMD is almost all "LogSiliconDriver" although the logging macros are inconsistent here. I don't think we need this in the way Metal is using it.
Just to add, I think this is intended to be used in a same way that you are suggesting UMD messages should have something that says that message comes from UMD. I don't know how tt-metal uses it, but in Buda this made sense, since you had a lot of compilation components (compute, data movement) and messsages were clearly stating from which component the message came. That was original usage I think
Generally, spdlog looks cleaner to me as well than the logger we use right now, but I don't have strong opinions on it. I guesss @blozano-tt is the best person for these questions, in terms of what customers want to see, consistency across repos etc...
Example of how it logs: