From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Difficulties for compilation without extra optimisation
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 09:00:54 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c834d3ed-3da3-e2b5-7f4b-9e36bfcb388b@users.sourceforge.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171203162256.4ea0750d@vmware.local.home>
> Why would you compile the kernel without optimization?
Can another reason be occasionally still relevant?
Will the compilation be a bit quicker when extra data processing
could be omitted?
> There's many places in the kernel that WILL NOT BUILD without optimization.
Would you like to keep the software situation in this way?
> In fact, we do a lot of tricks to make sure that things work the way
> we expect it to, because we add broken code that only gets compiled out
> when gcc optimizes the code the way we expect it to be,
> and the kernel build will break otherwise.
* Can this goal be also achieved without the addition of “broken code”?
* How do you think about to improve the error handling there?
Regards,
Markus
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: elfring at users.sourceforge.net (SF Markus Elfring)
Subject: [Linux-kselftest-mirror] Difficulties for compilation without extra optimisation
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 10:00:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c834d3ed-3da3-e2b5-7f4b-9e36bfcb388b@users.sourceforge.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171203162256.4ea0750d@vmware.local.home>
> Why would you compile the kernel without optimization?
Can another reason be occasionally still relevant?
Will the compilation be a bit quicker when extra data processing
could be omitted?
> There's many places in the kernel that WILL NOT BUILD without optimization.
Would you like to keep the software situation in this way?
> In fact, we do a lot of tricks to make sure that things work the way
> we expect it to, because we add broken code that only gets compiled out
> when gcc optimizes the code the way we expect it to be,
> and the kernel build will break otherwise.
* Can this goal be also achieved without the addition of “broken code”?
* How do you think about to improve the error handling there?
Regards,
Markus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: elfring@users.sourceforge.net (SF Markus Elfring)
Subject: [Linux-kselftest-mirror] Difficulties for compilation without extra optimisation
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 10:00:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c834d3ed-3da3-e2b5-7f4b-9e36bfcb388b@users.sourceforge.net> (raw)
Message-ID: <20171204090054.DBT-xmeT-u8jIoBulS5OYsogxEHFuMk73MXtA8HX9Zo@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171203162256.4ea0750d@vmware.local.home>
> Why would you compile the kernel without optimization?
Can another reason be occasionally still relevant?
Will the compilation be a bit quicker when extra data processing
could be omitted?
> There's many places in the kernel that WILL NOT BUILD without optimization.
Would you like to keep the software situation in this way?
> In fact, we do a lot of tricks to make sure that things work the way
> we expect it to, because we add broken code that only gets compiled out
> when gcc optimizes the code the way we expect it to be,
> and the kernel build will break otherwise.
* Can this goal be also achieved without the addition of “broken code”?
* How do you think about to improve the error handling there?
Regards,
Markus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Trond Myklebust <trondmy@primarydata.com>
Subject: Re: Difficulties for compilation without extra optimisation
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 10:00:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c834d3ed-3da3-e2b5-7f4b-9e36bfcb388b@users.sourceforge.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171203162256.4ea0750d@vmware.local.home>
> Why would you compile the kernel without optimization?
Can another reason be occasionally still relevant?
Will the compilation be a bit quicker when extra data processing
could be omitted?
> There's many places in the kernel that WILL NOT BUILD without optimization.
Would you like to keep the software situation in this way?
> In fact, we do a lot of tricks to make sure that things work the way
> we expect it to, because we add broken code that only gets compiled out
> when gcc optimizes the code the way we expect it to be,
> and the kernel build will break otherwise.
* Can this goal be also achieved without the addition of “broken code”?
* How do you think about to improve the error handling there?
Regards,
Markus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-04 9:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-07 16:53 [PATCH RFC v1] nfs/write: Use common error handling code in nfs_lock_and_join_requests() SF Markus Elfring
2017-11-07 16:53 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-03 14:15 ` Difficulties for compilation without extra optimisation SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-03 14:15 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-03 14:15 ` [Linux-kselftest-mirror] " SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-03 14:15 ` elfring
2017-12-03 15:17 ` Trond Myklebust
2017-12-03 15:17 ` Trond Myklebust
2017-12-03 15:17 ` Trond Myklebust
2017-12-03 15:17 ` [Linux-kselftest-mirror] " Trond Myklebust
2017-12-03 15:17 ` trondmy
2017-12-03 21:22 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-12-03 21:22 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-12-03 21:22 ` [Linux-kselftest-mirror] " Steven Rostedt
2017-12-03 21:22 ` rostedt
2017-12-03 21:56 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-03 21:56 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-03 21:56 ` [Linux-kselftest-mirror] " SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-03 21:56 ` elfring
2017-12-04 2:40 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-12-04 2:40 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-12-04 2:40 ` [Linux-kselftest-mirror] " Steven Rostedt
2017-12-04 2:40 ` rostedt
2017-12-04 9:55 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-04 9:55 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-04 9:55 ` [Linux-kselftest-mirror] " SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-04 9:55 ` elfring
2017-12-04 9:00 ` SF Markus Elfring [this message]
2017-12-04 9:00 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-04 9:00 ` [Linux-kselftest-mirror] " SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-04 9:00 ` elfring
2017-12-04 9:48 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-12-04 9:48 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-12-04 9:48 ` [Linux-kselftest-mirror] " Steven Rostedt
2017-12-04 9:48 ` rostedt
2017-12-04 10:18 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-04 10:18 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-04 10:18 ` [Linux-kselftest-mirror] " SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-04 10:18 ` elfring
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=c834d3ed-3da3-e2b5-7f4b-9e36bfcb388b@users.sourceforge.net \
--to=elfring@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.