thoughts on coalescing libbb/ source files

[Bernhard Fischer]

On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 01:43:33PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
>On Monday 27 March 2006 7:55 am, Robert P. J. Day wrote:

>There's the strange "iterate and build multiple times" logic to produce *.om 

1) There is no such logic to produce *.om
2) Even if there was, it would be *no* different than what the current
iterate to produce several .o does, except that the object files are
named differently (.om instead of .o). I don't see how this is a strange
logic, fwiw. It did just help to make the rules simpler, nothing else.

>files.  And newer versions of gcc have the strange "put everything in its own 
>ELF section and eliminate dead code that way" thing the compiler can do for 
>us, although we won't be able to depend on that for another two or three 
>years and even then it means we compile stuff we don't need.  On the other 
>hand, putting together the files and iteratively producing .om files means 
>we're parsing unneeded source code repeatedly; I don't know what kind of 

Rob, this is not true. The .om (which in fact are not there) would take the
same amount of time it takes to build an .o . As already stated above,
*only* the filename would differ.

>speed hit that has.  Presumably it's just the preprocessor operating out of 
>cache...

If you care about the end-result (i.e. small size) then the best you can
get is a recent compiler and CONFIG_BUILD_AT_ONE. Just try it out and
compare the results, if you don't believe me.