From: Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz>
To: sedat.dilek@gmail.com
Cc: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org,
Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Thoughts about introducing OPTIMIZATION_CFLAG
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 23:37:21 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <568AF421.7050305@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+icZUUAoG0VeY06r_=c7aNGbuSkHp5VRHNSB=bQGTiTHShGtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Dne 4.1.2016 v 12:47 Sedat Dilek napsal(a):
> But I think you did not get my problem - to have two different
> optimization-levels for a compiler in *one* make-line makes no sense
> to me.
That we sometimes have -O2 ... -Os on the command line is not a problem,
since any same unix tool parses its options so that the last one of
mutually exclusive options wins. As to -Os vs. -Oz, to my knowledge
clang accepts both and -Oz means to reduce size by any means. If -Oz is
more appropriate for the CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE case and/or for the
individual object files, feel free to change it, but please do not
introduce another variable holding compiler options.
Michal
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-04 22:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-04 10:54 Thoughts about introducing OPTIMIZATION_CFLAG Sedat Dilek
2016-01-04 11:25 ` Sedat Dilek
2016-01-04 11:33 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2016-01-04 11:47 ` Sedat Dilek
2016-01-04 22:37 ` Michal Marek [this message]
2016-01-08 10:03 ` Sedat Dilek
2016-01-08 10:03 ` Sedat Dilek
2016-01-08 11:31 ` Michal Marek
2016-01-08 11:49 ` Sedat Dilek
2016-01-08 12:30 ` Michal Marek
2016-01-08 13:25 ` Sedat Dilek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=568AF421.7050305@suse.cz \
--to=mmarek@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=sam@ravnborg.org \
--cc=sedat.dilek@gmail.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.