Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 4 Nov 2002 12:51:44 -0700 | From | Tom Rini <> | Subject | Re: CONFIG_TINY |
| |
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 02:13:48AM +0000, Rob Landley wrote: > On Friday 01 November 2002 14:15, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Yes, so why can't those who still need a few more kB after trying some > > of the other options go and find '-O2' and replace it with '-Os' ? > > Because the point of CONFIG_TINY is to make the kernel smaller and this is > something that makes the kernel smaller? (In fact telling the compiler > "optimize for size" is one of the most OBVIOUS things to do?) > > I've used -Os. I've compiled dozens and dozens of packages with -Os. It has > always saved at least a few bytes, I have yet to see it make something > larger. And in the benchmarks I've done, the smaller code actually runs > slightly faster. More of it fits in cache, you know.
Then we don't we always use -Os?
-- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |