On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Christopher Li <sparse@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 5:42 AM, Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Yes, actually that is what I have in mind. When "--aggressive" > is turn on, sparse will execute "dbg-sparse" to enable those aggressive > code path. The optional name is subject to change. > >> . Then there is no need for an extra binary at all keeping the build >> system simple and that also makes it it easier to understand for users >> (but I might judge others by my own standards here?) For gcc this flag >> is -Wall, there isn't an extra binary either. > > There is still need for extra binary because some verification can be > slow sparse and hard to turn off without impact the sparse performance. > For example the ptr list ref count patch. It is execute at every ptrlist > bucket iteration. > > If there is no performance impact on when those verification > is turn off. Then yes, there is no need for a separate binary. The questions that really matter are: - who will use these extra binaries? - in which circonstances? -- Luc -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
