Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 08:35:51PM +0100, Roland Mainz wrote: > > Are there any objections that I make a patch which simply adds > > "-xstrconst" to the tree-wide compile options ? > > Not at all; I'd welcome it, provided - and this is a big catch - that > you can demonstrate that you've achieved the necessary test coverage > on every single binary whose compile-time options change as a result,
Ouch... every single binary with all possible combinations of input ? That's almost impossible for a single person .. ;-( The only thing which I could provide myself is something like a stacked build test, e.g. build ON, boot it, build ON inside it and then boot that version and built ON in it, too. And then compare builds 2 and 3 for differences and/or build+boot failures. Alternatively I could just post the patches (including a deadline when the patch should be commited (AFAIK similar to the Sun concept of a "flag day")) and let the community test it for breakage. > or that a particular binary doesn't need to be tested (because, for > example, it doesn't actually contain any string literals). I would be hard to find such an example... almost every tool has at least a version string and/or a usage message and the kernel modules itself need strings for their identification. > I'd > suggest you look at the existing 'gcc and XXX don't get along' type > bugs (there are over 500 of them) to see where we've already found > bugs of this type. I believe the printing system (cmd/lp) in > particular is actually using -fwritable-strings in a few places still, > so it would definitely break with -xstrconst. There is a catch... the public query interface for the bug database isn't very sophisticated (well, some people here even consider it being a bad joke compared to the bugzilla query interface) and without having access to the patches in the database which shows what was done to fix the particular issue it's even harder (AFAIK there was another thread about patch access in the bug database this month) if not impossible (for a single person) ... ;-( ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED] \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;) _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
