* Anthony Liguori (anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > On 09/10/2010 02:31 PM, Chris Wright wrote: > >* Avi Kivity (avi@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > >> On 09/09/2010 04:00 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >>>>It's perfectly reasonable to want to avoid building the tcg code > >>>>if you aren't going to use it. > >>>Why? It doesn't do any harm to have extra code. > >>It's half a megabyte of code. > >And half a day to compile ;) > > > >>Also, it's better not to have code > >>snippets that call mprotect(PROT_EXEC) in your executable. > >I agree, is there any reason not to enable compiling less into the binary? > >There are folks interested in eliminating as much as possible to reduce > >the attack surface and auditing requirements, for example. > > It's not a bad idea, it's just that what --disable-cpu-emulation > does is evil. Being that I wrote the implementation, I'm quite > confident in declare it as such :-) Heh > It was initially a work around in the dyngen days because a GCC 3.x > compiler wasn't available for PPC 44x easily. It's always been the > wrong approach to addressing the problem though and since we don't > have weird compiler dependencies anymore we really should remove it. OK, I see. Thanks for clarifying. thanks, -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
