From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kamil Dudka Subject: Re: [PATCH] make sparse headers self-compilable... Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:25:48 +0200 Message-ID: <200908112325.48345.kdudka@redhat.com> References: <200908072227.08652.kdudka@redhat.com> <200908111240.06529.kdudka@redhat.com> <70318cbf0908111408u238bd057vd3e4578baa0fe32c@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:52777 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753556AbZHKV0d (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:26:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <70318cbf0908111408u238bd057vd3e4578baa0fe32c@mail.gmail.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Christopher Li Cc: sparse On Tuesday 11 of August 2009 23:08:24 Christopher Li wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Kamil Dudka wrote: > > I agree processing of multiple-includes could be painful for the SPARSE > > preprocessor. But you don't solve it by avoiding multiple-includes in the > > SPARSE code itself. If you want to pass the SPARSE code through SPARSE, > > it's small enough to not bother us with performance. > > I am worry about adding too much duplicated include slow down the > gcc compile of sparse itself. I know I am paranoid :-) Tested just now (ccache turned off)... With the original (not amended) patch: $ make clean && time make -j9 real 0m0.966s user 0m4.654s sys 0m1.471s With the amended patch: $ make clean && time make -j9 real 0m0.989s user 0m4.580s sys 0m1.504s Without any of my patches applied: $ make clean && time make -j9 real 0m0.980s user 0m4.596s sys 0m1.495s Note that the results fluctuated approx 10% during runs. My conclusion: absolutely no impact on gcc compile time. Kamil