begin: Etay Meiri <cl1@netvision.net.il> quote
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 01:16:05PM -0800, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
> > can that be right? i was able to compile both the devfs and non-devfs
> > versions of grumpy with -O3.
> >
> > the only difference between the two is that -O3 implies -finline-functions,
> > and -O2 doesn't. would that really break compiling?
> >
> > pete
>
> I read somewhere that a lot of kernel code depends on the characterstics of optimization
> generated code and would simply not work without -O2. I can't provide a pointer to that info.
> From my own experience I know that without optimization at all your module would fail insmod
> for unresolved symbols. I haven't tried -o3. Perhaps someone else can elaborate on this point.
this is true, but -O3 is exactly equivalent to -O2 with automatic function
inlining wherever gcc can do it. (clearly recursion is an example of where
gcc can't automatically do function inlining).
anyway, -O3 has always worked for my modules. :)
pete
--
"You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages
Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services ..."
-- Clause from license for FrontPage 2002
--
Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel.
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/
IRC Channel: irc.openprojects.net / #kernelnewbies
Web Page: http://www.kernelnewbies.org/
