I think that's a good idea.
Gabe
nathan binkert wrote:
> What do people think of me adding something called hack() that behaves
> like warn() or warn_once(), but is only compiled in when a HACK_ON
> flag is set (by default debug/opt) and is turned on by a command line
> option?
>
> The idea here is that right now, we have no consistent way of
> indicating that something needs work and is a hack. This way, we can
> run an experiment with the hack flag on and get some information about
> what hacks were encountered during the simulation experiment.
>
> Would people use it? Would people actively try to convert "hacks" to use it?
>
> sample usage would be:
>
> int
> foo()
> {
> hack("this function should really check the return value of write and");
> hack("signal an error if necessary, but we ignore that for now");
>
> write(fd, "asdf");
> }
>
> Nate
> _______________________________________________
> m5-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
>
_______________________________________________
m5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
