On Feb 17, 2008 5:37 AM, Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 09:52:51PM -0500, Nicholas Marquez wrote: > > I submitted this patch to the zen-sources Gentoo community and got > > much praise and has promptly been included. This kind of thing have > > very likely already been done in other patchsets, but I haven't seen > > it around, > > Probably it wasn't done by other patchsets. ;-) > > > so I've gone ahead and made one. The idea is that one can > > enable -Os and various other options transparently through standard > > kernel configuration, so why bar the builder from any other options to > > pass on to gcc (et al)? > > Examples, please. Which compiler flags do you want to add to your .config? > Speaking of -Os, it's CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE .
For example: DFORTIFY_SOURCE=2 or ftree-ch, because it's not enabled by Os, but does indeed help often, especially in the case of various kernel codepaths. As to CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE, I realize. "-Os" is just easier to type and I assume that a kernel dev list would map the correct config option. ;) > > > One can indeed add one's own flags in the > > Makefile, but this method is a good deal friendlier. Granted, this > > could be misused by ricers and idiots, but they'll get themselves into > > that mess all of their own fault and we'll all go on our merry ways. > > No, they will come here and report bugs they created themselves. And > there will be a policy: "too long CONFIG_CUSTOM_CFLAGS -- go away" and > so on. My point exactly. Enabling experimental or broken options is already ignored pretty well, so how hard is it to just create such a policy and go about shooting down people who've messed up? In all fairness, most people on the mailing list are terse and, shall we say, aggressive. I don't really see there being much of a problem with a few extra faulty bug reports. I feel that the good done would outweigh the slight overhead of a few idiots. > > > It just seems that much use could be made out of this, both in terms > > of (sane) optimizations > > Sane optimizations should be added to main Makefile. > > > and easier access to enhanced debugging > > opportunities. > > Which ones exactly? > > > I see that people who build a Linux kernel are largely of two types: > > ~the ones that understand and know enough that they could, with some > > nudging and learning, become bonafide kernel devs and > > ~the ones that understand it to some very basic degree and can get > > through configuring it without too much trouble (though with limited > > understanding) > > I believe one of the very simple things that can be addressed is to > > make the kernel more "accessible" without harming its integrity or > > functionality. This involves trying to fill the gap between those two > > types of people, allowing there to be more understanding, > > configuration, and (down the line) development opportunities within > > the kernel to better ease these people into learning enough to begin > > contributing back. > > > More developers can only be a Good Thing (tm). > > In general, wrong. > Erm... what are you responding to? I don't know what that "wrong" refers to. Especially considering that the paragraph you're referencing is an opinion and personal thought. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
