On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 09:36:19AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:28:05PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 12:36:41PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > If you remove this, there'll be no way to indicate semantic errors other
> > > than die() (the NULL approaches are no good, since they inhibit recovery),
> > > which is suboptimal if the error is not immediately fatal.
> >
> > But everything is immediately fatal. When we have a *real* example of
> > something that's not, we can restore an error code.
>
> Failed binary includes are not immediately fatal.
And is there any advantage to having them not immediately fatal?
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
