[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1103212105490.15815@swampdragon.chaosbits.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:08:24 +0100 (CET)
From: Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...e.fr>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org
Subject: PATCH][RFC][resend] CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE should default to N
I believe that the majority of systems we are built on want a -O2 compiled
kernel. Optimizing for size (-Os) is mainly benneficial for embedded
systems and systems with very small CPU caches (correct me if I'm wrong).
So it seems wrong to me that CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE defaults to 'y' and
recommends saying 'Y' if unsure. I believe it should default to 'n' and
recommend that if unsure. People who bennefit from -Os know who they are
and can enable the option if needed/wanted - the majority shouldn't
select this. Right?
Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
---
Kconfig | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig
index 56240e7..0d63dfa 100644
--- a/init/Kconfig
+++ b/init/Kconfig
@@ -903,12 +903,12 @@ endif
config CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE
bool "Optimize for size"
- default y
+ default n
help
Enabling this option will pass "-Os" instead of "-O2" to gcc
resulting in a smaller kernel.
- If unsure, say Y.
+ If unsure, say N.
config SYSCTL
bool
--
Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net> http://www.chaosbits.net/
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists