Re: [PATCH 0/3] build system: section garbage collection for vmlinux

[Oleg Verych <olecom@flower.upol.cz>]

* Thu, 6 Sep 2007 23:19:55 +0200
>
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 11:16:15PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
>> * Thu, 6 Sep 2007 22:39:31 +0200
>> 
>> []
>> >> > His patch improves the build process.
>> >> 
>> >> I would like to know timing, btw. Size, especially shown 1%, doesn't
>> >> matter if link time increased dramatically. `Allyes' config, when i
*if*
>> >> had fast and rammish machine was terrible thing (last winter). If 32
>> >> cores/cpus is will of author, then i'm even more suspicious.
>> >
>> > For non-developers size and speed of the kernel matter much more than 
>> > compile time.
>> 
>> I'm talking about benefits for the process (developers, testers) and
>> the result (end users, dogs eating own food :).
>
> Your claim was that link time was more important than code size, and 
> that claim is in many cases wrong.

I just noted, that maybe (*if*) build/link time have been affected.
There was an example of size reduction, why not to have timings also?

I guess, developer can spend time tuning written driver with that
option/patch. But what you will write in the help message for
testers/users? In this case build time is important obviously. Runtime
isn't affected at all, except, maybe, ~1% increase in bzImage unzipping.

Whatever.

>> > When you go towards embedded systems with limited resources a 1% size 
>> > decrease would often be worth it even if it would (hypothetically) 
>> > increase the compile time by a factor of 10.
>> 
>>    text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
>>    5159478 1005139  406784 6571401  644589 linux-2.6.23-rc4.org/vmlinux
>>    5131822  996090  401439 6529351  63a147 linux-2.6.23-rc4.gc/vmlinux
>> 
>> Are this numbers show embedded target? I think no. Also time factor of
>> *10* can be spent more productively reviewing actual code of parts, that
>> are going to be embedded, no?
>
> First of all, please lookup the word "hypothetically" in a dictionary.

Do you mean hand-waving?

Whatever.

> And code review and Denys' patch have cumulative effects since his patch 
> results in improvements that can't be resonably done other than at 
> the ld and/or gcc level.

I was talking about introducing such things in development process.
Current kconfig may be not flexible, it must not lead to further problems
and silver-bullet solutions.

>> []
>> >> > There's nothing that requires treatment.
>> >> 
>> >> [Help for] The developers/contributors of those drivers, no?
>> >>...
>> >
>> > They did everything right.
>> >
>> > You should better try to understand the problem first before behaving as 
>> > if you knew everything better than everyone else...
>> 
>> OK, thank you very much. Now, describe what problem you are talking
>> about, please. I see non.
>
> If you don't understand what the patches in this thread are about then 
> you shouldn't have started commenting on this thread...

Not first time i see, what i should do. Thank you very much, Adrian!
You know better, what i know. Great.

Then say from the beginning that you're not interested in reviewing
and view-exchanging process, you know better, what i should do. Thus, i
will not waste my time explaining anything.

Whatever.
____