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: 10+ 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 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox