On Aug 23, 2011, at 8:45 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 20:32 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: >> If tinylogin is the only issue why modify/patch gcc? I see we have >> meta/recipes-core/tinylogin/tinylogin-1.4/use_O2_option.patch to deal >> with this? >> >> Not allowing -Os at all, which is our current situation on PPC is >> problematic. So trying to see if this issue is really limited to gcc >> 4.5 or not. How can I reproduce it with current poky.git? > > We were seeing problems when makefiles were putting -Os into compiler > flags without our knowledge. In some cases -Os was silently corrupting > binaries. We therefore ended up adding the poison so if anything was > using the option we knew to generate buggy code, we'd know about it.
So, I'm trying to figure out if it was just tinylogin or more that had issues. > If we know gcc to be safe using that option we can drop the patch and > users can enable it where it makes sense to them. I still don't like > makefiles changing compiler optimisations from under us though. Last I > heard, -Os was still very badly supported and not recommended by the gcc > community. That's a different issue altogether. I think its bad that we dont allow -Os at all which is what I'm trying address and the fact that its pretty necessary to build u-boot because it has size limitations. - k _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
