On 7/21/07, Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.

which functionality ?  normalizing of whitespace or all these
linux-specific hacks ?  unifdef serves one specific function which is
stated in its manpage: remove preprocessor conditionals from code.

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