Hi Lars,
lars brinkhoff writes:
> Thank you.
You're welcome. I'm keen to have eyes from other architectures look at this
stuff.
> This might be very useful for me, because I'm trying to convice
> my company to use Linux for our embedded application. Do you
> have any estimate on how much space the patch saves?
The savings become significant when you start turning config options off.
For example, with the -ffunction-sections and CONFIG_MESSAGES patches I just
posted, my stripped powerpc vmlinux dropped by 170K to 780K. This should
improve further when I get the gcc people to fix a bug preventing some of the
unused strings from being optimised away.
If your competition's kernel is ~600K, I doubt they can claim a significant
edge based on size alone. The Linux kernel is already pretty lean; my patches
just enable a bit more optimisation for embedded stuff.
I guess it's a case of incrementally chipping away. Individually the savings
are not enormous, but they add up when all applied together.
Regards,
Graham
-- Graham Stoney Principal Hardware/Software Engineer Canon Information Systems Research Australia Ph: +61 2 9805 2909 Fax: +61 2 9805 2929- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 23 2000 - 21:00:16 EST