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>