From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 16:29:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 16:29:39 -0400 Received: from ppp0.ocs.com.au ([203.34.97.3]:62224 "HELO mail.ocs.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 16:29:27 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 From: Keith Owens To: Samium Gromoff <_deepfire@mail.ru> cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: is bzImage container large enough? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 01 Sep 2001 16:28:06 GMT." <200109011628.f81GS6R01079@vegae.deep.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 06:29:41 +1000 Message-ID: <22500.999376181@ocs3.ocs-net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 1 Sep 2001 16:28:06 +0000 (UTC), Samium Gromoff <_deepfire@mail.ru> wrote: > If one wanting to turn on virtually every kernel CONFIG_* option > in order to check if the kernel compiles and then report possible > gcc errors to lkml, will the resulting kernel fit the bzImage format? No, it is far too big. BTW, if you want to test compiles against various combinations of config, there are kbuild patches that add make allyes, make allno, make allmod and make randconfig. Included in separate mail.