From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932332AbWBUR46 (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:56:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932096AbWBUR46 (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:56:58 -0500 Received: from pasmtp.tele.dk ([193.162.159.95]:38162 "EHLO pasmtp.tele.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932332AbWBUR4y (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:56:54 -0500 Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:56:40 +0100 From: Sam Ravnborg To: Adrian Bunk Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] remove the CONFIG_CC_ALIGN_* options Message-ID: <20060221175640.GB9070@mars.ravnborg.org> References: <20060220223654.GR4661@stusta.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060220223654.GR4661@stusta.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:36:54PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > I don't see any use case for the CONFIG_CC_ALIGN_* options: > - they are only available if EMBEDDED > - people using EMBEDDED will most likely also enable > CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE > - the default for -Os is to disable alignment > > In case someone is doing performance comparisons and discovers that the > default settings gcc chooses aren't good, the only sane thing is to > discuss whether it makes sense to change this, not through offering > options to change this locally. I leave it to other to judge if this is wortwhile or not - I have no numbers to back up either with or without. It is though a nice cleaning effort in the Makefile. But if we back-out this then cc-option-aling should go as well, including description in Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.txt Sam