On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 06:56:40PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:36:54PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > I don't see any use case for the CONFIG_CC_ALIGN_* options:
> > - they are only available if EMBEDDED
> > - people using EMBEDDED will most likely also enable
> > CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE
> > - the default for -Os is to disable alignment
> >
> > In case someone is doing performance comparisons and discovers that the
> > default settings gcc chooses aren't good, the only sane thing is to
> > discuss whether it makes sense to change this, not through offering
> > options to change this locally.
>
> I leave it to other to judge if this is wortwhile or not - I have no
> numbers to back up either with or without.
> It is though a nice cleaning effort in the Makefile.
>
> But if we back-out this then cc-option-aling should go as well,
> including description in Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.txt
My patch doesn't remove cc-option-align, and it's still used in
arch/i386/Makefile.cpu.
The point of my patch is that there's no reason why a user should set
different align options (if a developer wants to benchmark different
align options, adding them to the CFLAGS in the Makefile is still
trivial).
> Sam
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
