From owner-freebsd-current Tue Oct 31 9:33: 3 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (troutmask.apl.washington.edu [128.208.78.105]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72E1437B479; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 09:33:01 -0800 (PST) Received: (from sgk@localhost) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.11.1/8.11.1) id e9VHcdA51034; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 09:38:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sgk) From: Steve Kargl Message-Id: <200010311738.e9VHcdA51034@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Subject: Re: INVARIANTS and -current In-Reply-To: <20001031175851.A75483@warning.follo.net> from Eivind Eklund at "Oct 31, 2000 05:58:51 pm" To: Eivind Eklund Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 09:38:39 -0800 (PST) Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL61 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Eivind Eklund wrote: > (Based on suggestion from Robert Watson.) > > I want to enable INVARIANTS by default in -current. This result in some > slowdown, but it also makes it more likely that we'll find bugs quickly. > People that want to run -current should know enough to disable it if it is > in the way, anyway. I support your proposal. But, have a question: Has anyone actually measured the performance impact of INVARIANTS? I'm tempted to suggest that INVARIANTS should be the default in not only -current in 5.0 when she's released. Anyone interested in performance in 5.0 will build custom kernels, and so he can turn INVARIANTS off. -- Steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message