* 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. ____ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
