Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 6 Sep 2000 12:22:03 +0200 (CEST) | From | Martin MaD Douda <> |
| |
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > The _real_ problem is preprocessor abuse. BTW, could we schedule for > 2.5 the following? > * things like CONFIG_FOO are _always_ defined. As 0 or 1, that is. > * #ifdef CONFIG_FOO => if (CONFIG_FOO) in *.c. gcc will kill the unused > branches just fine. > * Yes, Virginia, it means that controlflow-affecting expansion has to > go. Good riddance, IMO. > > Goal: making sure that every bloody line of the files we choose to > compile goes through the parser. Will do wonders with test coverage and will > make analysis tools like tags viable. Then we can just use the gcc frontend > output as input for such beasts. >
Problem: every bloody line will go through the parser. There is too many lines. Compilation is realy slow today. I'm affraid this approach would make it worse. Note that 2.4.0-test7 has more than 2.75 milion lines. Or did you mean drivers will be (optionally?) excluded from this compile-it-all-and-then-optimize-it-away?
I can understand advantages the if(CONFIG_FOO) approach has, but I'm not sure it is worth compilation slowdown.
Martin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Martin "MaD" Douda WEB: http://martin.douda.net/ PHONE:+420603752779 ICQ# 86467013 EMAIL: <martin@douda.net>, <mad@gate.mobil.cz> (160 characters only) PGP:ID=0x6FE43023 Fingerprint:E495 11DA EF6E 0DD6 965A 54F3 888E CC9E 6FE4 3023 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1]+ Done rm -rf /
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |