From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934828AbXGUWKo (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jul 2007 18:10:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1763708AbXGUWKe (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jul 2007 18:10:34 -0400 Received: from pasmtpa.tele.dk ([80.160.77.114]:44092 "EHLO pasmtpA.tele.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1763655AbXGUWKd (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jul 2007 18:10:33 -0400 Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 00:11:42 +0200 From: Sam Ravnborg To: Mike Frysinger Cc: Oleg Verych , Andrew Morton , kbuild-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [kbuild-devel] [PATCH 25/33] kbuild: use POSIX BRE in headers install target Message-ID: <20070721221142.GB2912@uranus.ravnborg.org> References: <11846813442810-git-send-email-sam@ravnborg.org> <118468134441-git-send-email-sam@ravnborg.org> <11846813441741-git-send-email-sam@ravnborg.org> <1184681344376-git-send-email-sam@ravnborg.org> <8bd0f97a0707210127m565f9b2cnc7a8a203f671e948@mail.gmail.com> <20070721100422.GK475@flower.upol.cz> <8bd0f97a0707211221l2c7fedeoea8612876350db6d@mail.gmail.com> <20070721203916.GA2912@uranus.ravnborg.org> <8bd0f97a0707211503y3de01d30n9b283237103fbc4@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8bd0f97a0707211503y3de01d30n9b283237103fbc4@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 06:03:00PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 7/21/07, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > >On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 03:21:43PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> On 7/21/07, Oleg Verych 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 functionality. Sam