> > no, the EGCS compiler codebase is smaller than the Linux kernel. The Linux
> > kernel is also fundamentally different from GCC, which makes it
> > fundamentally harder to write: inherent parallelizm is in every
> > piece of
>
> No.
>
> Most kernel's sources are not compiled into "your" kernel: those are
> drivers for hw you don't have. You really don't care that seagate.c
> scsi driver is broken w.r.t. SMP, do you?
well, i agree with you here. One way to measure this is to compare the
stripped binary sizes of cc1 vs. vmlinux, correct?
the size of egcs i have is:
-rw-r--r-- 1 mingo mingo 1303736 Jun 19 11:35 cc1
a stripped vmlinux is:
-rwxrwxr-x 1 mingo mingo 1382164 Jun 19 11:42 vmlinux
so it's about on the same level.
> gcc is nightmare compared to kernel, because code is not reasonably
> modular and all of it is used all the time. Gcc is subtle, inside. [...]
I _know_ that hacking egcs is incredibly complex and challenging, i
respect the egcs project and gcc hackers _alot_. I was protesting against
comparing gcc and the kernel directly by comparing code complexity. Linux
has very subtle complexities as well, not present in gcc. One of the
reasons why we try to keep Linux as simple as physically possible is the
fact that unnecessery complexities will come back and haunt us later by
slowing down development, reducing performance and increasing the number
of bugs - but it must be understood that this simplicity is a conscious
choice and should not be mistaken for being inferior. The same amount of
'unnecesserily complex new code' hits Linux considerably harder than GCC.
-- mingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/