* Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 06:47:20PM +0200, Vegard Nossum: > I have an idea on how to implement kbuild using non-recursive make, > which should be both more efficient and safer than the current recursive > make.
Well, i have ideas too. But they do not consider `make` as any kind of "efficient" and "safer" thing, whatever ad hocs someone going to stick to it. The most referred paper about recursive make states: How can it be possible that we have been misus- ing make for 20 years? How can it be possible that behavior previously ascribed to make's limi- tations is in fact a result of misusing it? The author only started thinking about the ideas presented in this paper when faced with a number of ugly build problems on utterly different projects, but with common symptoms. By step- ping back from the individual projects, and closely examining the thing they had in common, make, it became possible to see the larger pattern. Most of us are too caught up in the minutiae of just getting the rotten build to work that we don't have time to spare for the big picture. Especially when the item in question "obviously" works[...] But after reading this earlier in the paper, It must be emphasized that this paper does not suggest that make itself is the problem. This paper is working from the premise that make does not have a bug, that make does not have a design flaw. The problem is not in make at all, but rather in the input given to make - the way make is being used. i just am going to see "a big picture", which is without `make`. It doesn't matter, if `make` was misused for 20 years. What is matter, that for 9 years, after this topic was brought to LKML by the paper author, nothing has changed in the linux build system, WRT this problematic. Maybe someone is going to get rid of gotos, or doing whatever other "crap" CS professors think? Only reality shows, what results of any kind of hand wavings or implementation are. For now this are: * gotos are good in the system programming, when used appropriately (it seems, that famous kernel developer doesn't get it right sometimes (anytime?) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>); the main feature request for C lang lawyers is: "labels should have addresses, programmer can read and manipulate." * micro kernels -- no micro kernels (see the WWWeb :) ____ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
