Re: CONFIG_TINY

• Next message: john stultz: "Re: What's left over."
• Previous message: Gabor Z. Papp: "2.4.20-rc1 VFS"
• In reply to: Mark Mielke: "Re: CONFIG_TINY"
• Next in thread: Bill Davidsen: "Re: CONFIG_TINY"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Mark Mielke wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 07:33:01AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
>
>>>If gcc regularly generates larger code with -Os the answer is to talk to
>>>the gcc people, not to avoid using -Os...
>>
>>It's not that it does regularly, it's that it can, and if it does, it's
>>not really a gcc bug from what I recall. So I don't think CONFIG_TINY
>>should prefer -Os over -O2 but instead we should just ask the user what
>>level of optimization they want. Remember, one of the real important
>>parts of embedded systems is flexibility.
>
>
> Not to stretch this point too long, but turning off inlined functions 'can'
> make code bigger too. It usually doesn't.
>

GCC's -finline-limit=n should help to control this.

--
Luc Van Oostenryck
Yes, madam, I am drunk.
But in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly.
	-- Winston Churchill
-
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/

• Next message: john stultz: "Re: What's left over."
• Previous message: Gabor Z. Papp: "2.4.20-rc1 VFS"
• In reply to: Mark Mielke: "Re: CONFIG_TINY"
• Next in thread: Bill Davidsen: "Re: CONFIG_TINY"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 31 2002 - 22:00:56 EST