Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:03:55 -0500 (EST) | From | Bill Davidsen <> | Subject | Re: 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 <davidsen@tmr.com> 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 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/
| |