Re: CONFIG_TINY

[Mark Mielke]

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

-- 
[e-mail]/[e-mail]/[e-mail] __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | 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...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/