Re: CONFIG_TINY

Tom Rini
2002-11-01T14:12:48Z

On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 09:03:55PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> 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.

Yes, so why can't those who still need a few more kB after trying some
of the other options go and find '-O2' and replace it with '-Os' ?

--
Tom Rini (TR1265)