On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 12:48 AM Mikko Rapeli <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 11:37:39PM -0800, Khem Raj wrote: > > In this case -O will take effect sadly. and it seems to be that > > autconf munges the compiler cmdline > > while generating CFLAGS in generated Makefiles and appends the value > > of -On coming from CC > > variable last. > > > > I think right solution would be to add same -O<level> as specified in > > SELECTED_OPTIMIZATION so it remains > > in sync always, I have sent a patch to ml. Could you test it out and > > let me know if it works for you as well. > > Or let it go? A lot of recipes amend their own optimization flags and override > distro wide optimization and other compiler flags. I once fixes all recipes > in a project which were not obeying Os until buildhistory showed change in > binary > sizes... that was a lot of work for a PoC..
If the goal is to ensure that the optimisation flag from FULL_OPTIMIZATION and the -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE flag from lcl_maybe_fortify are always applied together then isn't the easiest solution to move -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE out of lcl_maybe_fortify and into FULL_OPTIMIZATION ? Putting a separate optimisation flag in lcl_maybe_fortify and trying to arrange for it not to clash with or override the one already in FULL_OPTIMIZATION seems like an ugly solution, even if it can be made to work.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#147922): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/147922 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/80425803/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
