[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: CONFIG_TINY
    On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Tom Rini wrote:

    > On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 01:53:14AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
    > > On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Rasmus Andersen wrote:

    > > >...
    > > > As before, your comments and suggestions will be
    > > > appreciated.
    > >
    > > could you try to use "-Os" instead of "-O2" as gcc optimization option
    > > when CONFIG_TINY is enabled? Something like the following (completely
    > > untested) patch:
    > -Os can produce larger binaries, keep in mind. If we're going to go
    > this route, how about something generally useful, and allow for general
    > optimization level / additional CFLAGS to be added.

    Sure, and unrolling loops can cause cache misses and be slower than that
    jmp back in a loop. The point is this is a string, the people who think
    they're able to hand diddle the options can change it. And more to the
    point anyone who can't find a string in a makefile shouldn't be second
    guessing the compiler anyway.

    bill davidsen <>
    CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
    Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:30    [W:0.020 / U:38.016 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site