Re: Compiling x86 with and without frame pointer

From: Dave Jones (davej@codemonkey.org.uk)
Date: Thu Nov 21 2002 - 07:55:54 EST

Next message: Arjan van de Ven: "Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules"
Previous message: Roman Zippel: "Re: 2.5 kconfig doesn't handle "&& m" correctly"
In reply to: Keith Owens: "Compiling x86 with and without frame pointer"
Next in thread: Alan Cox: "Re: Compiling x86 with and without frame pointer"
Reply: Alan Cox: "Re: Compiling x86 with and without frame pointer"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 03:47:13PM +1100, Keith Owens wrote:
> The conventional wisdom is that compiling x86 without frame pointer
> results in smaller code. It turns out to be the opposite, compiling
> with frame pointers results in a smaller kernel. gcc version 3.2
> 20020822 (Red Hat Linux Rawhide 3.2-4).

I've been pushing a forward port of the CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER changes
that went into 2.4 for a while, but Linus hasn't taken them each time.
I'll keep pushing until I get a comment..

Dave

-- 
| Dave Jones.        http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Arjan van de Ven: "Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules"
Previous message: Roman Zippel: "Re: 2.5 kconfig doesn't handle "&& m" correctly"
In reply to: Keith Owens: "Compiling x86 with and without frame pointer"
Next in thread: Alan Cox: "Re: Compiling x86 with and without frame pointer"
Reply: Alan Cox: "Re: Compiling x86 with and without frame pointer"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 23 2002 - 22:00:36 EST