[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    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

    I can understand advantages the if(CONFIG_FOO) approach has, but I'm not
    sure it is worth compilation slowdown.


    Martin "MaD" Douda
    WEB: PHONE:+420603752779 ICQ# 86467013
    EMAIL: <>, <> (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
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.028 / U:44.416 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site