On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 03:21:43PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 7/21/07, Oleg Verych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 04:27:31AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >[]
> >> if you want to make some micro optimization in the build install step,
> >> sure ... but functionally, the difference is irrelevant considering
> >> sed operates only on individual lines
> >
> >That was an attempt to support less sucking userspace in the kernel
> >development. More readable, more memory/cpu effective, more portable.
> while you could try and make a claim against memory/cpu effeciency, i
> fail to see how the first or last claims could possibly be backed up
> but again, if you feel that strongly about it, you're certainly free
> to post a patch

I would much more prefer this functionality to be integrated into unifdef.
There is no good reason to have two different preprocesisng methonds, one
being the sed based one and the other the unidef one.

A sinlge dedicated program that contian the sum of the functionality would
be faster too.


This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >>  http://get.splunk.com/
kbuild-devel mailing list

Reply via email to