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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:25 EST