From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.123]:36788 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754593Ab1CVCwh (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Mar 2011 22:52:37 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 22:52:32 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: PATCH][RFC][resend] CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE should default to N Message-ID: <20110322025232.GL14675@home.goodmis.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Jesper Juhl Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , "Paul E. McKenney" , Ingo Molnar , Daniel Lezcano , Eric Paris , Roman Zippel , linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 09:08:24PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote: > I believe that the majority of systems we are built on want a -O2 compiled > kernel. Optimizing for size (-Os) is mainly benneficial for embedded > systems and systems with very small CPU caches (correct me if I'm wrong). > So it seems wrong to me that CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE defaults to 'y' and > recommends saying 'Y' if unsure. I believe it should default to 'n' and > recommend that if unsure. People who bennefit from -Os know who they are > and can enable the option if needed/wanted - the majority shouldn't > select this. Right? > > Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl I've actually seen nothing but problems with -Os. Acked-by: Steven Rostedt -- Steve