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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 31 2002 - 22:00:58 EST