|| ||Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org> |
|| ||Steven Rostedt <rostedt-AT-goodmis.org> |
|| ||Re: PATCH: Add --size-check=[error|warning] |
|| ||Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:58:43 -0700|
|| ||"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa-AT-zytor.com>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich-AT-novell.com>, sedat.dilek-AT-gmail.com,
Alan Modra <amodra-AT-bigpond.net.au>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-elte.hu>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools-AT-gmail.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx-AT-linutronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>,
|| ||Article, Thread
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Steven Rostedt <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> If it was a bug in asm, but binutils can cope with it, then it should be
> a warning. If binutils can't cope, then error.
I think this is the really fundamental issue: anybody who makes a hard
error out of something that is recoverable is a total moron.
We have that in the kernel too - I've berated people for using
BUG_ON() _much_ too eagerly. If you make a hard error out of
something, that just makes things much much harder to handle, and is
just a big inconvenience for everybody. Why do it?
In the kernel, a hard error (like BUG_ON()) tends to result in a
system that is unusable and makes logging things harder. And in
development tools, a hard error just means that you stop _everybody_,
whether the user is a developer or just a tester who can't
realistically fix it (or a developer who is not involved in that
area). And even for developers who _are_ directly involved, a hard
error stops the build, instead of just letting it continue and help
him see if there are perhaps _other_ cases that should also be fixed.
So anybody who makes something a hard error when it's not required is
just being a STUPID. It hurts everybody. Don't do it.
to post comments)