Your problem is not the compiler but the build tool / system which
forces you to recompile all of your kernel if you change only small
parts.
Regards
Henning
>Daniel Phillips <phillips@arcor.de> wrote:
>>
>> As for compilation speed, yes, that sucks. I doubt there's any rational
>> reason for it, but I also agree with the idea that correctness and binary
>> code performance should come first, then the compilation speed issue should
>> be addressed.
>No. Compilation inefficiency directly harms programmer efficiency and the
>quality and volume of code the programmer produces. These are surely the
>most important things by which a toolchain's usefulness should be judged.
>I compile with -O1 all the time and couldn't care the teeniest little bit
>about the performance of the generated code - it just doesn't matter.
>I'm happy allowing those thousands of people who do not compile kernels all
>the time to shake out any 3.2/3.3 compilation problems.
>Compilation inefficiency is the most serious thing wrong with gcc.
>-
>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/
-- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH hps@intermeta.de +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire
--- Quote of the week: "Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." ---
- 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/