Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 29 Jan 1997 08:00:09 +1100
From:      Giles Lean <giles@nemeton.com.au>
To:        Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
Cc:        config@freebsd.org, chat@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Kernel config metasyntax 
Message-ID:  <199701282100.IAA25280@nemeton.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <199701281432.BAA12099@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On Wed, 29 Jan 1997 01:02:23 +1030 (CST)  Michael Smith wrote:

> Er, you don't mean semantic checking, you mean content checking,
> correct?

Content checking is minimum (catch those typos) but semantic checking
for inconsistent options is useful as well.

> Insofar as is possible, sure.  I don't think, however, that the sort
> of checking that you describe is feasible, desirable or even
> necessary, given that the input isn't going to be user-supplied.

I don't mind you arguing 'desirable' or 'necessary' but feasible is
precisely what I am concerned about.  I dislike tools that don't
validate their inputs, and to build one that cannot validate seems
unwise.

(In fact checking is feasible with a tool such as you describe, but
would have to be a separate stage to parsing.)

The current design of 'config' where options are passed through as C
#defines is less than wonderful.  I took a support call once at HP for
someone who had set MAXDSIZ to be greater than 2^32.  Interesting
things happened but config should have caught it. :-(

Giles




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199701282100.IAA25280>