[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110322025232.GL14675@home.goodmis.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 22:52:32 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
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: Re: PATCH][RFC][resend] CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE should default to N
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 09:08:24PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> 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>
I've actually seen nothing but problems with -Os.
Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
-- Steve
--
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