[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <568AF421.7050305@suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 23:37:21 +0100
From: Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
To: sedat.dilek@...il.com
Cc: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Thoughts about introducing OPTIMIZATION_CFLAG
Dne 4.1.2016 v 12:47 Sedat Dilek napsal(a):
> But I think you did not get my problem - to have two different
> optimization-levels for a compiler in *one* make-line makes no sense
> to me.
That we sometimes have -O2 ... -Os on the command line is not a problem,
since any same unix tool parses its options so that the last one of
mutually exclusive options wins. As to -Os vs. -Oz, to my knowledge
clang accepts both and -Oz means to reduce size by any means. If -Oz is
more appropriate for the CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE case and/or for the
individual object files, feel free to change it, but please do not
introduce another variable holding compiler options.
Michal
--
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