Subject: Re: top
To: Colin Wood <cwood@ichips.intel.com>
From: D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@druid.net>
List: current-users
Date: 07/16/1998 12:24:45
Thus spake Colin Wood
> > This brings up another question for me. I have been asking about kernel
> > panics and I may have found the problem. It appears that defining those
> > constants to anything is enough to trigger the code but perhaps it is
> > not consistent. I had UVM in the kernel that was causing all the panics
> > so I removed it and changed the "yes" to a "no" in the mk.conf file. It
> > looks like that caused the UVM code to be triggered just as if I had said
> > "yse." Perhaps your problem is that sometime it needs "yes" and sometimes
> > it needs anything so your "1" is ambiguous.
> >
> > I'm just guessing here. Anyone more familiar with it know for sure?
>
> The problem is most likely that some code simply does:
>
> #ifdef UVM
>
> whilst other code may do:
>
> #if UVM
Not likely. It works if UVM is set yo "yes" so I imagine it to be
more like the difference between
#ifdef UVM
and
#if UVM == yes
Hmm. I just double checked the syntax with K&R2 and although the latter
is correct according to them, a small test program seems to make that
statement true no matter what the value of UVM or even if it is defined
or not. I must be missing something.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 424 2871 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.