Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 20:42:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 20:42:23 -0500 Received: from mail.ocs.com.au ([203.34.97.2]:65030 "HELO mail.ocs.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 20:42:00 -0500 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 From: Keith Owens To: Larry McVoy Cc: "Eric S. Raymond" , Dave Jones , "Eric S. Raymond" , Linus Torvalds , Marcelo Tosatti , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kbuild-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: State of the new config & build system In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 27 Dec 2001 17:37:39 -0800." <20011227173739.U25698@work.bitmover.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 12:41:48 +1100 Message-ID: <18754.1009503708@ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 27 Dec 2001 17:37:39 -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: >A couple of questions: > >a) will 2.5 be as fast as the current system? Faster? At the moment kbuild 2.5 ranges from 10% faster on small builds to 100% slower on a full kernel build. But that is using slow core code which I know I can rewrite to make it significantly faster. >b) what's the eta on 2.5? kbuild 2.5 is ready now. I am not even going to start on the core rewrite until Linus takes the existing kbuild 2.5 code. The existing code works and is stable, doing a complete core rewrite just before includeing in the kernel strikes me as stupid. - 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/