From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 26 14:23:56 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21E0916A421 for ; Sat, 26 May 2007 14:23:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from shoesoft@gmx.net) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7090D13C448 for ; Sat, 26 May 2007 14:23:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from shoesoft@gmx.net) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 26 May 2007 14:23:54 -0000 Received: from h081217094222.dyn.cm.kabsi.at (EHLO taxman.pepperland) [81.217.94.222] by mail.gmx.net (mp025) with SMTP; 26 May 2007 16:23:54 +0200 X-Authenticated: #16703784 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+tNIJ1oRqt6GKaN0m5RrfZ9mxQU4RO3/pvpPnqVz Wz898xDK6K4PAg From: Stefan Ehmann To: Roman Divacky Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 16:23:53 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 References: <20070525095146.GA45288@freebsd.org> <200705261554.38444.shoesoft@gmx.net> <20070526140421.GA97649@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20070526140421.GA97649@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200705261623.54752.shoesoft@gmx.net> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras Subject: Re: size of kernel after gcc4.2 upgrade X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 14:23:56 -0000 On Saturday 26 May 2007 16:04:21 Roman Divacky wrote: > On Sat, May 26, 2007 at 03:54:37PM +0200, Stefan Ehmann wrote: > > On Saturday 26 May 2007 15:15:34 Ivan Voras wrote: > > > Roman Divacky wrote: > > > > well.. I dont think that 60% increase of size when you are optimizing > > > > for size is normal. I even think its a "bug" in that sense that > > > > something wrong is set somewhere which causes this. > > > > > > > > I certainly dont believe this is normal > > > > > > I'm using the default make flags. In my case, it's release, > > > non-debugging 6-RELEASE kernel of 26 MB vs debugging kernel of > > > 7-CURRENT of 106 MB :) > > > > I guess that's due to /boot/kernel/*.symbols which are not present in my > > 6.2 installation. gcc42 file size increase shouldn't be that much. > > thats the problem. with -Os and gcc42 the kernel increases A LOT (60%), > other optimization levels doesnt seem to be affected Yes, but Ivan said he used default flags. So I think in his case the symbol files are mainly responsible for the 106MB vs 26MB. There's definitely something fishy about the -Os build. As I wrote earlier today: It looks like -Os does excessive inlining. Which might possibly be caused by our gcc options or a gcc bug. Setting a very low -finline-limit for testing purposes gives reasonable filesizes. Any gcc experts around to comment on this issue? Stefan