[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4] cutils: Provide strchrnul
From: |
Markus Armbruster |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4] cutils: Provide strchrnul |
Date: |
Wed, 13 Jun 2018 07:50:44 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) |
Peter Maydell <address@hidden> writes:
> On 11 June 2018 at 08:56, Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> wrote:
>> You're not printing $strchrnul like we print other configuration
>> results. Hmm, we're not printing several of them. Question for
>> maintainers (MAINTAINERS doesn't have any, so I'm cc'ing the top three
>> coughed up by get_maintainer.pl): bug or feature? If feature, how do we
>> decide what to print?
>
> If we printed everything that we tested for then the output would
> be unhelpfully enormous. My view is that we should print the
> "interesting" things for the user, ie the higher-level things
> that the user could potentially turn on by installing more
> libraries or has turned off explicitly or whatever. Reporting
> whether the host OS has strchrnul or whether we've had to
> provide our own implementation is doubly uninteresting:
> * there's nothing the user could do to change this
> * there is no visible effect (missing features, worse performance)
Care to clean out out existing "uninteresting" prints?
> There's an argument that we should also log every config check
> result somehow (I think autoconf configures do this), but I
> don't think that our 'print stuff to stdout' is the right place
> for that.
Makes sense. Volunteers?