On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Sam Ravnborg wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 08:58:03AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >
> > > A summary of what is planned to be submitted in next merge window for 
> > > kbuild.
> > > The shortlog below have additional details but the headlines are:
> > ...
> > > o add script to find unused kconfig symbols (try it!)
> >
> > based on my experiences with this, unless you filter carefully, you're
> > going to end up with a *whack* of false positives given the number of
> > developers who elect to name their local macros starting with a prefix
> > of "CONFIG_".  good luck dealing with *that*.  :-)

> This is useful for specific people but not for kernel janitorial
> fodder. As you already experience the amount of false positive are
> too high.
> But for a developer of a module it is no deal to ignore the false
> positives.
> It is for godd reasons not integrated in the build process.

right, i agree completely.  if it were absolutely reliable in
generating *only* actual unused symbols, then that *might* (i stress,
*might*) be a viable argument for making it part of the Kbuild system.

but, really, if you can whip off a script that does most of the job in
a few minutes, there's really no motivation to then spend hours trying
to nail those last few harmless bits of irrelevant output.

Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA


This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
kbuild-devel mailing list

Reply via email to