Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 26 May 2007 16:04:21 +0200
From:      Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>
To:        Stefan Ehmann <shoesoft@gmx.net>
Cc:        freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr>
Subject:   Re: size of kernel after gcc4.2 upgrade
Message-ID:  <20070526140421.GA97649@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <200705261554.38444.shoesoft@gmx.net>
References:  <20070525095146.GA45288@freebsd.org> <20070526125438.GA93705@freebsd.org> <f39btv$k3t$1@sea.gmane.org> <200705261554.38444.shoesoft@gmx.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070526140421.GA97649>