Re: CONFIG_TINY

Bill Davidsen
2002-11-01T01:58:49Z

On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Tom Rini wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 01:53:14AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Rasmus Andersen wrote:

> > >...
> > > As before, your comments and suggestions will be
> > > appreciated.
> >
> > could you try to use "-Os" instead of "-O2" as gcc optimization option
> > when CONFIG_TINY is enabled? Something like the following (completely
> > untested) patch:
>
> -Os can produce larger binaries, keep in mind. If we're going to go
> this route, how about something generally useful, and allow for general
> optimization level / additional CFLAGS to be added.

Sure, and unrolling loops can cause cache misses and be slower than that
jmp back in a loop. The point is this is a string, the people who think
they're able to hand diddle the options can change it. And more to the
point anyone who can't find a string in a makefile shouldn't be second
guessing the compiler anyway.

--
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.