On Sep 1, 2013, at 12:35 PM, Klemen Košir wrote: > I'm using -Os since I'll be installing it on a USB drive.
That shouldn't be the definitive reason for using -Os. If you understand what Os does, it wouldn't matter where you are installing the binaries. It has to do with which system you will be running the system with. The whole idea for optimization is to reduce code size. You'll find out that O3 will usually give you the same size of binary as Os. O2 a little less. O1 a little less. and no optimizations or -O0 will give you the largest binary. -Os has obvious value if one is compiling for a space-constrained environment like a small device. But it turns out that, in some situations, optimizing for space can also produce faster code. In a sense, we are all running space-constrained systems, in that the performance of our CPUs depends heavily on how well those CPUs are using their cache space. Space-optimized code can make better use of scarce instruction cache space, and, as a result, perform better overall. Basically, you aren't worried about drive space. It's cache space, that this is all pertaining to. If you are going to use O3 or Os with binutils build system: pass --disable-werror to the configure line. Anyway, the error you have encountered has been around in binutils for a long time since the gcc 4.1.1 days or earlier, and early binutils builds when people use -Os or -O3. There have been multiple posts at the lfs-support and lfs-dev mailing lists about it. Don't take optimizations lightly and know exactly what they do and make sure that you are using them for the right reason. Not sure about installing it on a USB drive is the proper reason for using Os. Sincerely, WIlliam Harrington -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
