ord: Print a simpler message when write_db fails to open file. #6123
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Christian Costa <[email protected]>
|
For #6120. |
|
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
src/OpenRoad.cc
Outdated
| utl::StreamHandler stream_handler(filename, true); | ||
| db_->write(stream_handler.getStream()); | ||
| } catch (const std::ios_base::failure& f) { | ||
| logger_->error(ORD, 55, "Cannot write database to {}", filename); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please include the f.what string in the message as it may give more detail on the cause of the failure.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does write_def or write_lef need similar treatment?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes for write_lef. write_def is different with the '.1'. Where does it come from?
>>> write_def foo/bar
[ERROR GUI-0070] No such file or directory: foo/bar.1
>>> write_lef foo/bar
[ERROR GUI-0070] basic_ios::clear: iostream error (failed to open 'foo/bar.1'): iostream error
There was a problem hiding this comment.
write_lef might need to write multiple files so they get . suffixes.
write_lef/def are not part of GUI.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is the case where write_lef write multiple files?
Regarding write_db & write_def, why using a suffix then? Should we use basic iostream instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you read multiple LEFs in you should expect multiple out. I don't expect it on def.
Signed-off-by: Christian Costa <[email protected]>
|
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
Signed-off-by: Christian Costa <[email protected]>
|
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
I don't understand your suggestion.
What is the purpose of util::StreamHandler? What problem is it supposed to solve? OR uses std::ifstream for reading. |
|
@titan73 master for the code you propose to change is using utl::StreamHandler today. I think the code reads pretty well and the purpose is pretty clear from the code. If you ask ChatGPT/copilot to explain what it does and why it exists instead of your proposed change, I am pretty sure you will get a satisfactory answer. In this day and age, I consider simple code that ChatGPT/copilot can adequately explain purpose and implementation of sufficiently documented. |
|
No need for ChapGPT. Seems the code prevents the existing file to be overwritten in case of failure. |
No description provided.