On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Nick Desaulniers <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Siqi Lin <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm OK with sticking with the <2.27 binutils behavior. The gzip data is: > > That's what this patch does; goes back to the <2.27 behavior for 2.27+. > > > binutils 2.25: > > Image 41467904 > > Image.gz 13395151 > > binutils 2.27: > > Image 41467392 > > Image.gz 14114953 > > > > gzipped kernel increased by 0.69 MiB. > > That's without this patch applied? With it applied, what are the > stats (for gzip)? >
binutils 2.27 with this patch (with --no-apply-dynamic-relocs): Image 41535488 Image.gz 13404067 binutils 2.27 without this patch (without --no-apply-dynamic-relocs): Image 41535488 Image.gz 14125516 The 2.27 gzipped size with this patch is about the same as 2.25. > > The one special case I see is !CONFIG_RELOCATABLE and compression is > > used, where there's a tradeoff between compressed image size and the > > benefit of dynamic relocs. > > if !CONFIG_RELOCATABLE, then this patch (well v2 which will use > CONFIG_RELOCATABLE rather than CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_BASE) doesn't do > anything.
