* Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <a...@ghostprotocols.net> wrote:
> Em Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:18:55PM +0200, Ingo Molnar escreveu:
> > * David Ahern <dsah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 9/12/13 11:43 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> >
> > > > Its something that annoys me as well, but not so much as to make me
> > > > figure out how to make those be done only if some source file changed.
> > >
> > > Jiri and I have both taken stabs at a config-based build rather than
> > > probing. Just need to finish it.
> >
> > Mind outlining the approach you are thinking about?
> >
> > Firstly, please don't even think about autotools. (Just forget it exists.)
>
> hehe, no, that wasn't considered.
/phew! :-)
> > Secondly, the way perf tries to build by auto-detecting the build
> > environment and auto-disabling bits it cannot build just yet is pretty
> > powerful. The core bits will build on just about any system, and our
> > fallbacks are really good.
>
> That would remain as:
>
> make -C tools/perf autoconfig
>
> > The result is that perf will build on just about any random system,
> > without the user having to install any dependency. It would be really
> > sad to lose that aspect.
>
> we will not
But it would be nice to keep building as simple as 'make'.
So I don't think splitting out the feature tests into a separate pass, to
be done manually by the user, is a step forward.
Speeding them up by caching their results, while cleaning up the
presentation of the testcases, on the other hand, would be a (big!) step
forward.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
