On 11/7/13 4:54 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 11/7/13 4:35 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>> >
>> >> FWIW, I was thinking that this kind of check should be replaced
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
> On 11/7/13 4:35 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> >
> >> FWIW, I was thinking that this kind of check should be replaced by some
> >> capability in the tool chain to verify a configur
On 11/7/13 4:35 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I was thinking that this kind of check should be replaced by some
>> capability in the tool chain to verify a configuration, maybe by marking
>> some values as required. In productio
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> FWIW, I was thinking that this kind of check should be replaced by some
> capability in the tool chain to verify a configuration, maybe by marking
> some values as required. In production, you hopefully don't need these
> kinds of checks. I've
FWIW, I was thinking that this kind of check should be replaced by some
capability in the tool chain to verify a configuration, maybe by marking
some values as required. In production, you hopefully don't need these
kinds of checks. I've also floated the idea of "debug-mode" beads which
have more
