On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 06:03:00PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> 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.

At present the kernel has a private copy of unidef. So adjusting the
private copy for the needs of the kernels seems like a god plan.
We could even make it an extension so we do not break current


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