Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Mon, 10 Jul 2000 23:33:31 +0200 (CEST) | | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> | | Subject | Re: empty function optimizations |
| |
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Philipp Rumpf wrote: > On Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 09:50:38PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > My idea was to replace empty and most simple functions by predefined dummy(), > > dummy_zeros(), dummy_ones() and dummy_einval() functions, so they appear only > > once in a kernel image. But is it worth the effort? Note that you don't compile > > all code into your favorite kernel image, only the parts you need for your > > hardware, so you won't catch all empty functions at once. > > This really should be a gcc/ld thing. If/when we moved to -ffunction-sections, > all that would be required is a "merge identical read-only ELF sections" > option to ld (or a standalone hack to do the same thing).
Sounds indeed like a better idea, and can easily be combined with the ongoing work for dead function elimination.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- Linux/{m68k~Amiga,PPC~CHRP} -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |