Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:03:30 -0700 From: "Sam Leffler" <sam@errno.com> To: "Dag-Erling Smorgrav" <des@ofug.org> Cc: <freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: DIAGNOSTIC vs. INVARIANTS Message-ID: <136101c218ae$b2a37c70$52557f42@errno.com> References: <124a01c2189b$72df9cd0$52557f42@errno.com> <xzp7kkt7f9h.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> "Sam Leffler" <sam@errno.com> writes:
> > I read DIAGNOSTIC to be intended to control inclusion of code that
_prints
> > diagnostic messages_ or similar and not code that does consistency
checks.
>
> DIAGNOSTICS is also intended for consistency checks that have a
> significant impact on performance.
There are things under DIAGNOSTIC that look to belong under INVARIANTS.
It is a good thing to have a set of consistency checks that developers can
run but that might be turned off in a production system. This looks to be
how INVARIANTS is used.
Consistency checks that have a significant performance impact probably
should have individual controls or they'll cause the general mechanism to be
much less useful.
Sam
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?136101c218ae$b2a37c70$52557f42>