On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 01:22:58PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Jeroen Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I think that for compilation we don't need to synchronize everything > > to be sure the filesystem the compilation happens on has an > > inconsistent. It doesn't really matter if you lose some objects > > files. Maybe it would be a nice thing to provide this as an option. > > The bugs that happen are *not* merely that you lose occasional object > files. You can get arbitrary corruption.
And then fsck can repair that in the case of a crash, right? > In any case, we do not implement bugs deliberately. We can decide to > have a totally asynchronous unsafe mode, which is no worse than just > ignoring this particular issue. If there is only unimportant data on the filesystem, it would be nice if it could be faster. I don't see it as a bug, I see it as a feature. If Linux has the same feature (or bug, whatever you call it) for years, people probably don't care about it. Hmm, maybe they do care, with all those journaling filesystems, but I still think it would be useful to make the tradeoff. It would be a lot nicer if glibc would compile a lot faster and have some filesystem corruption *if* there would be a crash. However, there should be no crash in the first place. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: jeroen@openprojects
msg04335/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
