On 25.04.2018 17:33, Alex Bennée wrote: > People following old instructions for QEMU get the message "No machine > specified, and there is no default" and run -machine help to pick a > new machine. Lay people might consider the null-machine to be such a > basic starting point but they won't get far. This leads to confusion, > see https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/1766896 as an example. > > I'm open to better words - I figured "THIS PROBABLY ISN'T WHAT YOU > WANT" seemed less helpful though. > > Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> > --- > hw/core/null-machine.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/hw/core/null-machine.c b/hw/core/null-machine.c > index cde4d3eb57..72f0815045 100644 > --- a/hw/core/null-machine.c > +++ b/hw/core/null-machine.c > @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ static void machine_none_init(MachineState *mch) > > static void machine_none_machine_init(MachineClass *mc) > { > - mc->desc = "empty machine"; > + mc->desc = "empty machine (for probing/QMP)";
Actually, with certain CPUs, you can really use the "none" machine as a pure instruction set testing system. For example, on m68k, there used to be an explicit "dummy" machine for this job, and we removed it in favour of the "none" machine: https://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commitdiff;h=22f2dbe7eaf3e12e38c9c210 So I'd rather not add such wording. We should rather fix those segfaults instead (QEMU should never segfault - in case a device can not be used with the "none" machine, there rather should be an error message instead). Thomas