From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:60354 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752313AbcADWhZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jan 2016 17:37:25 -0500 Subject: Re: Thoughts about introducing OPTIMIZATION_CFLAG References: <20160104113318.700a9ed0@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> From: Michal Marek Message-ID: <568AF421.7050305@suse.cz> Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 23:37:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: sedat.dilek@gmail.com Cc: One Thousand Gnomes , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Sam Ravnborg , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Arnd Bergmann , Ingo Molnar , linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, Linux ACPI , LKML , the arch/x86 maintainers 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