> panic() -- An assert that isn't compiled out > fatal() -- some configuration parameter caused a problem Ok, I thought so. Do we want to keep these names? I will promise that I have learned finally, but the names seem a bit to synonymous to me. I will go through my code and convert the proper things to fatal since I am at fault for not doing this correctly. Does everyone else seem to do this stuff correctly, or should we go through more of them?
I would also like to add an option to allow panic and fatal (or whatever their replacements) to raise exceptions into the python so we can get a stack trace. I don't know if this influences any thoughts on this. > Can't we make the error messages themselves descriptive, rather than > requiring a two step process? Well, something like the stat check error needs more description, and a link to the wiki page would be useful. We could do it only for the error messages that are necessary of course, but it seems that some of the error messages should have a lot more information. > Most of these errors panic in the c++ and call _exit(). I don't think people > are seeing python error messages that often. I think some of the configuration script things could be trapped in python. Nate _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
