Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Eivind Eklund wrote:
> > (Based on suggestion from Robert Watson.)
> >
> > I want to enable INVARIANTS by default in -current. This result in some
> > slowdown, but it also makes it more likely that we'll find bugs quickly.
> > People that want to run -
On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 10:06:14PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Could someone give a quick explanation what INVARIANTS does?
It adds more internal consistency checks to the kernel. This make bugs show
up more promptly and in a more predictable fashion, which again makes it
easier to fix the
Could someone give a quick explanation what INVARIANTS does?
JAn
On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Boris Popov wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Eivind Eklund wrote:
>
> > I want to enable INVARIANTS by default in -current. This result in some
> > slowdown, but it also makes it more likely that we'll find bugs
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Eivind Eklund wrote:
> I want to enable INVARIANTS by default in -current. This result in some
> slowdown, but it also makes it more likely that we'll find bugs quickly.
> People that want to run -current should know enough to disable it if it is
> in the way, anyway.
>
> W
Eivind Eklund wrote:
> (Based on suggestion from Robert Watson.)
>
> I want to enable INVARIANTS by default in -current. This result in some
> slowdown, but it also makes it more likely that we'll find bugs quickly.
> People that want to run -current should know enough to disable it if it is
> i
(Based on suggestion from Robert Watson.)
I want to enable INVARIANTS by default in -current. This result in some
slowdown, but it also makes it more likely that we'll find bugs quickly.
People that want to run -current should know enough to disable it if it is
in the way, anyway.
Well-reasoned
