Thoughts?
Thanx, Paul
----- Forwarded message from Jesper Juhl <j...@chaosbits.net> -----
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 00:49:58 +0100 (CET)
From: Jesper Juhl <j...@chaosbits.net>
To: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
cc: Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezc...@free.fr>,
Eric Paris <epa...@redhat.com>,
Roman Zippel <zip...@linux-m68k.org>
Subject: [PATCH][RFC] 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 <j...@chaosbits.net>
---
Kconfig | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig
index be788c0..7e16268 100644
--- a/init/Kconfig
+++ b/init/Kconfig
@@ -886,12 +886,12 @@ 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 <j...@chaosbits.net> http://www.chaosbits.net/
Plain text mails only, please.
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
----- End forwarded message -----
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
