Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 1 Nov 2002 07:15:59 -0700 | From | Tom Rini <> | Subject | Re: CONFIG_TINY |
| |
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 09:03:55PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote: > 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.
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' ?
-- 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/
| |