[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8762zn7mzu.fsf@hariville.hurrynot.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 21:27:09 +0530
From: Raja R Harinath <harinath@...rynot.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] lib: vsprintf: added a put_dec() test and benchmark tool
Hi,
MichaĆ Nazarewicz <m.nazarewicz@...sung.com> writes:
> On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 07:10:06 +0200, Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday 06 August 2010 00:38, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
>>> This commit adds a test application for the put_dec() and
>>> family of functions that are used by the previous two commits.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>
>>
>>> +put-dec-test: put-dec-test.c
>>> + exec $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -o $@ $<
>>
>> (1) Why exec?
>
> Micro Makefile optimisation -- saves us a fork().
I don't think it's worth it. The use of 'exec' will force make to
invoke the shell, while without the exec, make has an opportunity to
optimize out the shell invocation completely [1]. Forcing the use of a
shell to avoid a fork() sounds like a terrible trade-off.
- Hari
[1] See, for instance, construct_command_argv_internal() in
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/make/job.c?root=make&view=markup
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists