On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 12:13:51PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2002 03:14:10 +0200,
> Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> >you're right if we need a make clean it's because the buildsystem is
> >broken. However one thing that happens all the time to me, is that I
> >change an header like mm.h or sched.h and ~everything needs to be
> >rebuilt then.
>
> That is an orthogonal problem to kbuild 2.5. The spaghetti that is the
of course.
> include tree needs to be cleaned up, other people are working on that.
>
> >Now the only regression I can
> >see is that kbuild was quite slower in compiling the kernel from scrach
> >(so I suspect that for me after editing mm.h it would take more time
> >with kbuild2.5 to reach the vmlinux generation than it took with the old
> >buildsystem after the make clean) Is that the case, or did you improved
> >the performance of kbuild recently?
>
> Since release 2.0 [1], kbuild 2.5 has been faster as well as more
Ok.
> accurate than the old build system. A couple of people have complained
> that some restricted operations are slower in kbuild 2.5 [2] but
> overall it is faster, more accurate and provides more facilities,
> especially for people building multiple kernels.
>
> [1] http://www.lib.uaa.alaska.edu/linux-kernel/archive/2002-Week-13/0771.html
> [2] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=102064198628442&w=2
Thanks for the two pointers.
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 23 2002 - 22:00:15 EST