Re: CONFIG_TINY

Mark Mielke
2002-10-31T05:26:34Z

On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 06:10:02PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 01:53:14AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > 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 CFLAGS should be configurable, but CONFIG_TINY should always prefer
-Os over -O2. From 'man gcc':

-Os Optimize for size. -Os enables all -O2 optimizations that do not
typically increase code size. It also performs further optimiza-
tions designed to reduce code size.

If gcc regularly generates larger code with -Os the answer is to talk to
the gcc people, not to avoid using -Os...

mark

--
mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...