From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-1.7] target-i386: Fix build by providing stub kvm_arch_get_supported_cpuid()
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:21:10 +0100
Message-ID: <52824766.2000507@redhat.com>
References: <5281580D.7060305@redhat.com> <CAFEAcA9oxAGZ3h-qkO32WJ-3TSZwMquYBfVhJ=oUqgBX8rqiow@mail.gmail.com> <52816422.8060002@redhat.com> <CA+aC4ksHwQnyYoofHd8U_uRarcB7Ynr_ekCVmYovaj7KnhHhfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFEAcA8UjSRze-Zz1jdE2sS0GM5ihfoN5Dz6Gj8MPF_iXUOewA@mail.gmail.com> <52821A62.2050001@redhat.com> <CAFEAcA8huEkY5pkiwCseXBBugOidXQBMS0HBoRWqsOhHxU7r2g@mail.gmail.com> <52822958.8060508@redhat.com> <20131112132337.GB2008@redhat.com> <528233DD.6020306@redhat.com> <20131112140935.GD2008@redhat.com> <528241E0.5060503@redhat.com> <CAFEAcA_itCrpH7sqe3HBhNK_7GoaAWO77zbttLbjucHt3YJF3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>,
	Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>,
	QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
	kvm-devel <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Patch Tracking <patches@linaro.org>,
	Andreas Tobler <andreast@freebsd.org>,
	Anthony Liguori <aliguori@amazon.com>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-ee0-f50.google.com ([74.125.83.50]:60500 "EHLO
	mail-ee0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753484Ab3KLPVR (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:21:17 -0500
Received: by mail-ee0-f50.google.com with SMTP id b45so3219270eek.37
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:21:16 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA_itCrpH7sqe3HBhNK_7GoaAWO77zbttLbjucHt3YJF3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Il 12/11/2013 16:13, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>>> >>
>>> >> -O1 then for clang.
>> >
>> > We can even test in configure for the exact optimizations we want, in
>> > fact.  But I think -O1 doesn't sacrifice debuggability that much:
> I'm afraid I still don't see why you'd want to sacrifice it
> at all,

Is this FUD or do you have examples of bad debuggability of -O1 code?

Personally, I've not even used -O0 for several years.  -O2 debuggability
is still awful but has improved a lot.  If it's not enough, 99% of the
time it means that tracing or printf are a better tool for the bug.

> when the alternative is "provide a three line stub
> function in a file we already have all the build machinery
> to compile in the config where it's needed". I just don't
> see why you'd worry about the fact that there's no longer
> a compile error if you try to call this obviously kvm
> specific function in a non-kvm-enabled code path, when
> we already have large numbers of kvm-specific functions
> that have stubs

Most of these stubs do _not_ abort(), they return a sensible error code
or should be no-ops in the non-KVM case.

> (and when in general, eg QOM APIs, we seem
> to be entirely happy to have things be runtime errors rather
> than compile time).

We're far from having consensus on that, indeed.

Paolo