On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Andrzej Krzysztofowicz wrote:
> So maybe make the original error message more informative ?
> Just something like:
>
> - extern void __buggy_fxsr_alignment(void);
> - __buggy_fxsr_alignment();
> + extern void __BUG__task_struct__data_is_not_properly_alligned__Probably_your_compiler_is_buggy(void);
> + __BUG__task_struct__data_is_not_properly_alligned__Probably_your_compiler_is_buggy();
1. People would probably still report that to l-k instead of reading it.
2. It's still not guaranteed to compile, even with correct compilers.
Maybe you can do a post-processing step - a sanity check which is run
_after_ build. But the runtime check is sufficient. People won't randomly
start compiling kernels for production boxen with silly compilers, then
booting them unattended. And if they do, they deserve the downtime.
I agree that a compile-time check would be kinder, but only if it can be
done properly. Show me one, and I'll be happy.
-- dwmw2- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 23 2001 - 21:00:48 EST