From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 21 19:39:27 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A22BBDB0; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 19:39:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vlakno.cz (mail.vlakno.cz [91.217.96.224]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6801AF31; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 19:39:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vlakno.cz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 6A79D1D7ED79; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 20:39:17 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 20:39:17 +0100 From: Roman Divacky To: John Baldwin Subject: Re: [PATCH]: further shrinking of boot2 Message-ID: <20141121193917.GA42522@vlakno.cz> References: <20141121125632.GA23706@vlakno.cz> <40529392.oiqLG4jV1P@ralph.baldwin.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40529392.oiqLG4jV1P@ralph.baldwin.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 19:44:16 +0000 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 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: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 19:39:27 -0000 Sure thing. Reload the patch from the same url. http://rys.vlakno.cz/~rdivacky/boot2.diet.patch On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:16:58AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > On Friday, November 21, 2014 01:56:32 PM Roman Divacky wrote: > > Hi all! > > > > In an effort to help import clang3.5 I looked at squeezing a few more bytes > > from boot2. > > > > > > http://rys.vlakno.cz/~rdivacky/boot2.diet.patch > > > > > > Please test and review the patch. It survived my qemu boot attempt so it's > > not completely broken. But I would like to have some more testing and review > > comments before I move forward with this. > > > > Fwiw, it shrinks boot2 by 16 bytes when compiled with clang34 and by 28 > > bytes when compiled with clang35. > > I would prefer 'int k' over 'int i2/j2'. Also, do you really have to move > the variable definitions to get the size change? I'd prefer to leave the > variable declarations where they are if possible (and just add 'int k' or > 'size_t k' in the existing variable blocks). > > -- > John Baldwin