Re: PATCH: requesting feedback on dead function optimisation

From: Graham Stoney (greyham@research.canon.com.au)
Date: Tue Apr 11 2000 - 00:26:14 EST


Andrew Morton writes:
> Graham, do you have any numbers on what this does to the overall build
> size?

By itself, the difference is not enormous. It starts to grow though once you
turn off CONFIG_PROC_FS and CONFIG_SYSCTL, and will make an even bigger
difference when/if I get around to generating a CONFIG_MESSAGES patch to allow
you to turn off all kernel messages. This eliminates all the human-readable
strings from the kernel, for use in deeply embedded systems. I've seen savings
of around 150-200K for hacks I've done so far, but it's hard to give a final
estimate yet.

Regards,
Graham

-- 
Graham Stoney
Principal Hardware/Software Engineer
Canon Information Systems Research Australia
Ph: +61 2 9805 2909  Fax: +61 2 9805 2929

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 15 2000 - 21:00:15 EST