Daniel Phillips <[email protected]> writes:
> I wanted to know how well kbuild 2.5 really works, so I got the patches
> from kbuild.sourceforge.net and gave them a test drive, comparing to
> old kbuild.
I currently have three problems with kbuild 2.5:
1. make TAGS doesn't work.
2. NO_MAKEFILE_GEN is unsupported and therefore likely to stop working
in future kernels. The documentation says:
Bug reports against kbuild when you used NO_MAKEFILE_GEN will
be ignored.
NO_MAKEFILE_GEN is about 8.4 times faster when you want to create a
single .o file on my 2.2GHz P4 system. It doesn't matter that much
on a fast machine, but my old PPro 200MHz machine required
something like 40s just to process the makefiles.
3. You have to remember the "-f Makefile-2.5" arguments to make,
otherwise it will use the old makefile system. This seems to mess
things up so that subsequent make commands fail.
I tried to "mv Makefile-2.5 Makefile" to overcome this problem, but
it doesn't work because the original Makefile appears to be needed
for extracting kernel version information.
--
Peter Osterlund - [email protected]
http://w1.894.telia.com/~u89404340
Hi,
On 2 Jun 2002, Peter Osterlund wrote:
> 3. You have to remember the "-f Makefile-2.5" arguments to make,
> otherwise it will use the old makefile system. This seems to mess
> things up so that subsequent make commands fail.
> I tried to "mv Makefile-2.5 Makefile" to overcome this problem, but
> it doesn't work because the original Makefile appears to be needed
> for extracting kernel version information.
There was no intention to reinvent the wheel. The only _replacing_
Makefile is a _merged_ version of them. Then you'll also have to find any
Makefile-2.5s and revert them to Makefiles. This will take a moment, and
is not yet intented.
Regards,
Thunder
--
ship is leaving right on time | Thunder from the hill at ngforever
empty harbour, wave goodbye |
evacuation of the isle | free inhabitant not directly
caveman's paintings drowning | belonging anywhere
Thunder from the hill <[email protected]> writes:
> On 2 Jun 2002, Peter Osterlund wrote:
> > 3. You have to remember the "-f Makefile-2.5" arguments to make,
> > otherwise it will use the old makefile system. This seems to mess
> > things up so that subsequent make commands fail.
> > I tried to "mv Makefile-2.5 Makefile" to overcome this problem, but
> > it doesn't work because the original Makefile appears to be needed
> > for extracting kernel version information.
>
> There was no intention to reinvent the wheel. The only _replacing_
> Makefile is a _merged_ version of them. Then you'll also have to find any
> Makefile-2.5s and revert them to Makefiles. This will take a moment, and
> is not yet intented.
Yes, I realize this problem will go away automatically when support
for the old makefile system is removed. I just wanted to present my
complete list of problems with kbuild 2.5. Except for those three
issues, I don't see any advantages with the old makefile system.
--
Peter Osterlund - [email protected]
http://w1.894.telia.com/~u89404340
Hi,
On 2 Jun 2002, Peter Osterlund wrote:
> Yes, I realize this problem will go away automatically when support
> for the old makefile system is removed. I just wanted to present my
> complete list of problems with kbuild 2.5. Except for those three
> issues, I don't see any advantages with the old makefile system.
Well, problem #1 (make TAGS) - what did you use it for?
Problem #2 (make NO_MAKEFILE_GEN) is a bit tricky with the new concept.
You may try to implement it, but I wonder where you'll end up.
Problem #3 is a migration problem...
Regards,
Thunder
--
ship is leaving right on time | Thunder from the hill at ngforever
empty harbour, wave goodbye |
evacuation of the isle | free inhabitant not directly
caveman's paintings drowning | belonging anywhere
Hi,
On Sun, 2 Jun 2002, Thunder from the hill wrote:
> You may try to implement it, but I wonder where you'll end up.
maintain ^^^^^^^^^
Regards,
Thunder
--
ship is leaving right on time | Thunder from the hill at ngforever
empty harbour, wave goodbye |
evacuation of the isle | free inhabitant not directly
caveman's paintings drowning | belonging anywhere
Thunder from the hill <[email protected]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> On 2 Jun 2002, Peter Osterlund wrote:
> > Yes, I realize this problem will go away automatically when support
> > for the old makefile system is removed. I just wanted to present my
> > complete list of problems with kbuild 2.5. Except for those three
> > issues, I don't see any advantages with the old makefile system.
>
> Well, problem #1 (make TAGS) - what did you use it for?
To create a TAGS file for emacs, which makes navigating the source
tree a lot easier.
> Problem #2 (make NO_MAKEFILE_GEN) is a bit tricky with the new concept.
> You may try to maintain it, but I wonder where you'll end up.
On my system I get 0.40s with NO_MAKEFILE_GEN compared to 3.41s
without, so my system is fast enough even without NO_MAKEFILE_GEN. I
just find it strange that the documentation says bug reports will be
ignored. If it breaks unintentionally in future kernels, fixing it
would probably not be too hard. Or are you planning to remove this
feature altogether?
--
Peter Osterlund - [email protected]
http://w1.894.telia.com/~u89404340
On Sunday 02 June 2002 14:51, Peter Osterlund wrote:
> Thunder from the hill <[email protected]> writes:
> > Problem #2 (make NO_MAKEFILE_GEN) is a bit tricky with the new concept.
> > You may try to maintain it, but I wonder where you'll end up.
>
> On my system I get 0.40s with NO_MAKEFILE_GEN compared to 3.41s
> without, so my system is fast enough even without NO_MAKEFILE_GEN. I
> just find it strange that the documentation says bug reports will be
> ignored. If it breaks unintentionally in future kernels, fixing it
> would probably not be too hard. Or are you planning to remove this
> feature altogether?
I think what he's saying is that the feature is a hack and isn't supposed
to work properly all the time, so don't complain about if it doesn't. I
think that's a reasonable attitude. There's yet more speed to be gained
by building the proper machinery for deciding reliably when the makefile
has to be rebuilt, and maybe doing the job incrementally, but that's not
the task at hand, that's a project for somebody to take their time and
do properly later. It's exactly this kind of work Keith has provided a
solid base for.
FYI, the way it works is, it just fails to do the makefile rebuild,
relying on human intelligence and experience to know that nothing
changed that would require a rebuild. IOW, use at your own risk. I
doubt this feature will go away, because anything that speeds up a
edit/compile/kaboom cycle that much is going to be happily used by a
significant number of madmen. If it breaks for some reason, such as
a new feature of bugfix that requires the makefile to *always* be
updated, somebody will step up to fix it.
--
Daniel