Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Sep 2013 22:46:18 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] perf fixes |
| |
* Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net> wrote:
> Em Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:18:55PM +0200, Ingo Molnar escreveu: > > * David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 9/12/13 11:43 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > > > > Its something that annoys me as well, but not so much as to make me > > > > figure out how to make those be done only if some source file changed. > > > > > > Jiri and I have both taken stabs at a config-based build rather than > > > probing. Just need to finish it. > > > > Mind outlining the approach you are thinking about? > > > > Firstly, please don't even think about autotools. (Just forget it exists.) > > hehe, no, that wasn't considered.
/phew! :-)
> > Secondly, the way perf tries to build by auto-detecting the build > > environment and auto-disabling bits it cannot build just yet is pretty > > powerful. The core bits will build on just about any system, and our > > fallbacks are really good. > > That would remain as: > > make -C tools/perf autoconfig > > > The result is that perf will build on just about any random system, > > without the user having to install any dependency. It would be really > > sad to lose that aspect. > > we will not
But it would be nice to keep building as simple as 'make'.
So I don't think splitting out the feature tests into a separate pass, to be done manually by the user, is a step forward.
Speeding them up by caching their results, while cleaning up the presentation of the testcases, on the other hand, would be a (big!) step forward.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |