On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 10:52:32AM -0500, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: > On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 10:37:40AM -0400 I heard the voice of > Kris Kennaway, and lo! it spake thus: > > > > With respect to INVARIANTS, you just need to get used to the fact > > that running thousands of checks for bugs is incompatible with > > running at optimal speed. > > (I'm not sure what the point of saying this is, really, but I'll say > it anyway.) > > I've run all my systems with INVARIANTS for at least as long as I've > known it was there. While more performance is always good, hardly any > of my systems are so constrained as to need every bit of suds all the > time; trading off a bit of performance for a better chance of catching > a problem before it really screws something up is just a no-brainer. > > Additionally (and especially on -CURRENT), I run it because I think > more people run it than don't, and while theoretically it should just > add checks, I know there are places where it changes code paths much > more than that. So, the !(INVARIANTS) code paths don't get exercised > as much, and I worry about bugs hiding there that don't get found (I > think I recall a case or three over the years of just that happening). > Like everyone, I'm sure, I'm all for ferreting out bugs and getting > them fixed, but I'd rather not have to bust my virtual face on the > virtual concrete to do it ;)
FYI, INVARIANTS adds checks but does not (is not supposed to) divert code paths. Kris
pgp2ibCdGtDyO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
