Re: CONFIG_TINY

Bill Davidsen
2002-11-06T14:30:36Z

On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, Rob Landley wrote:

> Reason 4 is inertia. You are explicitly considering inertia a good reason,
> then? I remember back around 1998, the argument over "-fno-strength-reduce"
> which accomplished nothing whatsoever (and was in fact disabled in gcc 2.7.x
> for i386) but was in the kernel compile for a long time becaue nobody could
> be bothered to remove it...

However, there were versions of gcc which generated bad x86 code if you
didn't use it. It stayed until that version would no longer compile the
kernel.

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