Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:02:07 -0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, Brad Knowles <blk@skynet.be>, FreeBSD-CURRENT Mailing List <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: INVARIANTS doesn't work? Message-ID: <20000327200207.8B8C21CD9@overcee.netplex.com.au> In-Reply-To: Message from Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> of "Fri, 24 Mar 2000 10:02:46 PST." <200003241802.KAA14776@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthew Dillon wrote: > :Is there any good reason why we have two different options if they can > :only be used together? > : > :Greg > > I think it's so you can compile a kernel with INVARIANT_SUPPORT in > in order to support dynamic load modules which may have been compiled > with INVARIANTS. Or so that you can compile individual files with INVARIANTS by whatever means suits your needs. I'm aware of quite a few machines that run with #define INVARIANTS 1 near the top of kern_malloc.c. Cheers, -Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000327200207.8B8C21CD9>