linux-mips-fnet
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Calling testers for another Dead Function Optimisation update

To: Graham Stoney <greyham@research.canon.com.au>
Subject: Re: Calling testers for another Dead Function Optimisation update
From: Dan Malek <dan@netx4.com>
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 14:13:11 -0400
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-alpha@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-mips@fnet.fr, sparclinux@vger.rutgers.edu, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org, linux-embedded@waste.org
Organization: NETx4, LLC
References: <20000511034105.0046250B7F@brixi.research.canon.com.au>
Sender: dan@pbdan.netx4.com
Graham Stoney wrote:

> I've made yet another update to my dead function optimisation


Has anyone looked at this????

This is the way the kernel used to be, with the kernel objects
as *.a files instead of *.o files.  I remember a discussion on
some mailing lists when things changed from *.a to *.o, and I
asked why it had changed.  The response I received was the change
was due to loadable modules, that when you link the kernel as a
bunch of *.a files the result is usually missing lots of functions
that a loadable module may want to call.  I was told to trim down
the size of my embedded kernel by using configuration options
(and loadable modules) rather than selective loading of functions
by 'ld'.


> .... and is particularly handy for emdedded systems people.

Yes, but I lost that argument long ago, and am trying to find
ways to work with the "new" method.


> I think/hope we're getting close to something that could be accepted into the
> official kernel now.

Who gave you that indication?  I wouldn't even try to check any of
this into the kernel sources based upon past discussions.



        -- Dan

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>