* Peter Maydell (peter.mayd...@linaro.org) wrote:
> On 11 June 2018 at 08:56, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> 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)
>
> 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.
We're not completely consistent, but I agree that we shouldn't print
the tiny things:
We're printing things that:
a) Are user visible (e.g. KVM support)
b) Reasonably major choices we make (e.g. coroutine backend)
c) Some lesser things (madvise/posix_madvise/posix_memalign)
However even (c) could be a problem if none were found
We probably shouldn't bother with printing things that have
no impact to either the user, or someone trying to cofnigure it and
wondering why a feature is missing.
Dave
> thanks
> -- PMM
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
