----- Original Message -----
From: "Jamie Lokier" <lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk>
To: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@transmeta.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 4:41 AM
Subject: Re: [ACPI] ACPI mentioned on lwn.net/kernel
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > It's sad that gcc relegates "optimize for size" to a second-class
> > citizen. Instead of having a "-Os" (that optimizes for size and doesn't
> > work together with other optimizations), it would be better to have a
> > "-Olargecode", which explicitly enables "don't care about code size" for
> > those (few) applications where it makes sense.
>
> Btw, there have been suggestions that -Os may actually be faster for x86
> code on current processors.
Hmm.. I tried to compile the kernel with -Os (gcc 2.96-98) and I just got a
~1% smaller vmlinux and a ~3% smaller bzImage. Maybe the size optimizations
doesn't show on these files? Internal data structures that are much bigger
than "real" code?
This is how I did:
--- Makefile Sat Jan 26 17:15:52 2002
+++ Makefile.Os Sat Jan 26 17:15:30 2002
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@
CPPFLAGS := -D__KERNEL__ -I$(HPATH)
-CFLAGS := $(CPPFLAGS) -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs -O2 \
+CFLAGS := $(CPPFLAGS) -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs -Os \
-fomit-frame-pointer -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common
AFLAGS := -D__ASSEMBLY__ $(CPPFLAGS)
_____________________________________________________
| Martin Eriksson <nitrax@giron.wox.org>
| MSc CSE student, department of Computing Science
| Umeå University, Sweden
- ABIT BP6(RU) - 2xCeleron 400 - 128MB/PC100/C2 Acer
- Maxtor 10/5400/U33 HPT P/M - Seagate 6/5400/DMA2 HPT S/M
- 2xDE-530TX - 1xTulip - Linux 2.4.17+ide+preempt
-
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 Jan 31 2002 - 21:00:41 EST