[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bd57d7d5-c8f5-0bc9-c96f-37550557dca3@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 22:56:51 +0100
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...marydata.com>
Subject: Re: Difficulties for compilation without extra optimisation
> Why would you compile the kernel without optimization?
I would like to see how big an effect finally is in such a build configuration
after specific source code adjustments.
> There's many places in the kernel that WILL NOT BUILD without optimization.
I did not really know this detail so far.
I noticed that the optimised build variants worked during my test comparisons.
> In fact, we do a lot of tricks to make sure that things work the way
> we expect it to, because we add broken code that only gets compiled out
> when gcc optimizes the code the way we expect it to be,
> and the kernel build will break otherwise.
Thanks for your information.
Can the software areas distinguished where such special handling matters?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists