From owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 13 17:11:52 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D28516A547 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:11:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (vc4-2-0-87.dsl.netrack.net [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A95EF43E98 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:10:50 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1] (may be forged)) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k8DH8jEv054544 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:08:45 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:08:48 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20060913.110848.-311941144.imp@bsdimp.com> To: freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.org From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20060911163218.GA88778@dragon.NUXI.org> References: <20060911163218.GA88778@dragon.NUXI.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 4.2 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0 (harmony.bsdimp.com [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:08:46 -0600 (MDT) Cc: Subject: Re: -O2 optimization X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the StrongARM Processor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:11:52 -0000 In message: <20060911163218.GA88778@dragon.NUXI.org> "David O'Brien" writes: : I've been wondering. Since most ARM platforms are RAM and storage : limited, should we not compile with -O2 and use -Os instead. : : -Os is "Optimize for size. -Os enables all -O2 optimizations that do not : typically increase code size. It also performs further optimizations : designed to reduce code size". : : So what do folks think about this patch? I like the idea, but I'm not sure I like the testing of MACHINE_ARCH directly for this. Maybe something like OPT_SMALL being defined instead? However, the following change saved ~65kB in a ~1900kB kernel I just built, or about 3%. That seems signficant enough to me to have a knob for. : Index: kern.pre.mk : =================================================================== : RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/conf/kern.pre.mk,v : retrieving revision 1.76 : diff -u -p -r1.76 kern.pre.mk : --- kern.pre.mk 17 Jul 2006 18:43:16 -0000 1.76 : +++ kern.pre.mk 11 Sep 2006 16:29:47 -0000 : @@ -27,7 +27,11 @@ COPTFLAGS?= -O : . if defined(DEBUG) : _MINUS_O= -O : . else : +. if ${MACHINE_ARCH} == "arm" : +_MINUS_O= -Os : +. else : _MINUS_O= -O2 : +. endif : . endif : . if ${MACHINE_ARCH} == "amd64" : COPTFLAGS?=-O2 -frename-registers -pipe : : -- : -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) : Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. : A: Why is top-posting (putting a reply at the top of the message) frowned upon? : _______________________________________________ : freebsd-arm@freebsd.org mailing list : http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arm : To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arm-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" : :