Hi Sam,
On Sunday 18 November 2007 15:00, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 09:05:33PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > Build system: section garbage collection for vmlinux
> >
> > Newer gcc and binutils can do dead code and data removal
> > at link time. It is achieved using
Hi Sam,
On Sunday 18 November 2007 15:00, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 09:05:33PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
Build system: section garbage collection for vmlinux
Newer gcc and binutils can do dead code and data removal
at link time. It is achieved using combination of
On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 18:30 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Friday 07 September 2007 17:31, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 18:07 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > > A bit extended version:
> > >
> > > In the process in making it work I saw ~10% vmlinux size reductions
> > >
On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 19:24 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> Hi Daniel.
>
> > > I did that before I posted patches to lkml.
> > > IOW: posted patches are not broken versus module loading.
> >
> > Ok, this is more like the explanation I was looking for..
> >
> > During this thread you seemed to
On Friday 07 September 2007 17:31, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 18:07 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > A bit extended version:
> >
> > In the process in making it work I saw ~10% vmlinux size reductions
> > (which basically matches what Marcelo says) when I wasn't retaining
> >
Hi Daniel.
> > I did that before I posted patches to lkml.
> > IOW: posted patches are not broken versus module loading.
>
> Ok, this is more like the explanation I was looking for..
>
> During this thread you seemed to indicate the patches you release
> reduced the kernel ~10% , but now your
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 18:07 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> A bit extended version:
>
> In the process in making it work I saw ~10% vmlinux size reductions
> (which basically matches what Marcelo says) when I wasn't retaining
> sections needed for EXPORT_SYMBOLs, but module loading didn't work.
>
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 18:07 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
A bit extended version:
In the process in making it work I saw ~10% vmlinux size reductions
(which basically matches what Marcelo says) when I wasn't retaining
sections needed for EXPORT_SYMBOLs, but module loading didn't work.
Hi Daniel.
I did that before I posted patches to lkml.
IOW: posted patches are not broken versus module loading.
Ok, this is more like the explanation I was looking for..
During this thread you seemed to indicate the patches you release
reduced the kernel ~10% , but now your saying
On Friday 07 September 2007 17:31, Daniel Walker wrote:
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 18:07 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
A bit extended version:
In the process in making it work I saw ~10% vmlinux size reductions
(which basically matches what Marcelo says) when I wasn't retaining
sections
On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 19:24 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
Hi Daniel.
I did that before I posted patches to lkml.
IOW: posted patches are not broken versus module loading.
Ok, this is more like the explanation I was looking for..
During this thread you seemed to indicate the patches
On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 18:30 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Friday 07 September 2007 17:31, Daniel Walker wrote:
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 18:07 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
A bit extended version:
In the process in making it work I saw ~10% vmlinux size reductions
(which basically
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 12:01:56AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
>...
> > And code review and Denys' patch have cumulative effects since his patch
> > results in improvements that can't be resonably done other than at
> > the ld and/or gcc level.
>
> I was talking about introducing such things in
* Thu, 6 Sep 2007 23:19:55 +0200
>
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 11:16:15PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
>> * Thu, 6 Sep 2007 22:39:31 +0200
>>
>> []
>> >> > His patch improves the build process.
>> >>
>> >> I would like to know timing, btw. Size, especially shown 1%, doesn't
>> >> matter if link time
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 11:16:15PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> * Thu, 6 Sep 2007 22:39:31 +0200
>
> []
> >> > His patch improves the build process.
> >>
> >> I would like to know timing, btw. Size, especially shown 1%, doesn't
> >> matter if link time increased dramatically. `Allyes' config,
* Thu, 6 Sep 2007 22:39:31 +0200
[]
>> > His patch improves the build process.
>>
>> I would like to know timing, btw. Size, especially shown 1%, doesn't
>> matter if link time increased dramatically. `Allyes' config, when i
>> had fast and rammish machine was terrible thing (last winter). If 32
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 10:43:49PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 02:21:43PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> []
> > > You've did a tool. Documenting this tool to have it available for
> > > testers/janitors/maintainers is a better way, than to have all that
> > > opinions/problems
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 02:21:43PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
[]
> > You've did a tool. Documenting this tool to have it available for
> > testers/janitors/maintainers is a better way, than to have all that
> > opinions/problems with merging-to-mainline.
>
> There is no problem with his patch.
>
On Thursday 06 September 2007 16:13, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 11:57 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > On Wednesday 05 September 2007 20:46, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 20:49 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > >
> > > > What does "it" stand for in this
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 11:57 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 September 2007 20:46, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 20:49 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> >
> > > What does "it" stand for in this sentence?
> >
> > "it" is your patches, and I think we got to bottom of it
On Thursday 06 September 2007 12:40, Oleg Verych wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 11:55:46AM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > We already do it, but we don't have enough developers to audit
> > every driver for every possible combination of config options.
> > As a result, there always be some
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 01:40:44PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 11:55:46AM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> []
> > > Give me example, please, why function must be non static if not used.
> >
> > Where do you see I'm saying that they must be non-static?
> > I'm all for marking
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 11:55:46AM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
[]
> > Give me example, please, why function must be non static if not used.
>
> Where do you see I'm saying that they must be non-static?
> I'm all for marking functions static. I just did it for aic7xxx.
>
> > If usage requires
On Wednesday 05 September 2007 20:46, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 20:49 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>
> > What does "it" stand for in this sentence?
>
> "it" is your patches, and I think we got to bottom of it .. "it" (i.e.
> your patches) don't actually work with modules,
On Wednesday 05 September 2007 21:34, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > > > Build system: section garbage collection for vmlinux
> > >
> > > Maybe this is just a test suit to get finish with `make XYZ static`?
> >
> > They are vaguely connected in a sense that unused function which is
> > not marked static
On Wednesday 05 September 2007 21:34, Oleg Verych wrote:
Build system: section garbage collection for vmlinux
Maybe this is just a test suit to get finish with `make XYZ static`?
They are vaguely connected in a sense that unused function which is
not marked static doesn't
On Wednesday 05 September 2007 20:46, Daniel Walker wrote:
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 20:49 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
What does it stand for in this sentence?
it is your patches, and I think we got to bottom of it .. it (i.e.
your patches) don't actually work with modules, which is what you
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 11:55:46AM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
[]
Give me example, please, why function must be non static if not used.
Where do you see I'm saying that they must be non-static?
I'm all for marking functions static. I just did it for aic7xxx.
If usage requires kconfig
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 01:40:44PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 11:55:46AM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
[]
Give me example, please, why function must be non static if not used.
Where do you see I'm saying that they must be non-static?
I'm all for marking functions
On Thursday 06 September 2007 12:40, Oleg Verych wrote:
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 11:55:46AM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
We already do it, but we don't have enough developers to audit
every driver for every possible combination of config options.
As a result, there always be some amount of
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 11:57 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Wednesday 05 September 2007 20:46, Daniel Walker wrote:
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 20:49 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
What does it stand for in this sentence?
it is your patches, and I think we got to bottom of it .. it (i.e.
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 02:21:43PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
[]
You've did a tool. Documenting this tool to have it available for
testers/janitors/maintainers is a better way, than to have all that
opinions/problems with merging-to-mainline.
There is no problem with his patch.
His
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 10:43:49PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 02:21:43PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
[]
You've did a tool. Documenting this tool to have it available for
testers/janitors/maintainers is a better way, than to have all that
opinions/problems with
* Thu, 6 Sep 2007 22:39:31 +0200
[]
His patch improves the build process.
I would like to know timing, btw. Size, especially shown 1%, doesn't
matter if link time increased dramatically. `Allyes' config, when i
had fast and rammish machine was terrible thing (last winter). If 32
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 11:16:15PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
* Thu, 6 Sep 2007 22:39:31 +0200
[]
His patch improves the build process.
I would like to know timing, btw. Size, especially shown 1%, doesn't
matter if link time increased dramatically. `Allyes' config, when i
had fast
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 12:01:56AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
...
And code review and Denys' patch have cumulative effects since his patch
results in improvements that can't be resonably done other than at
the ld and/or gcc level.
I was talking about introducing such things in
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 10:34:38PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 07:46:11PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > On Wednesday 05 September 2007 16:53, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > > * Wed, 5 Sep 2007 14:43:21 +0100
> > > * User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1
> > > >
> > > > Build system: section
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 07:46:11PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 September 2007 16:53, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > * Wed, 5 Sep 2007 14:43:21 +0100
> > * User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1
> > >
> > > Build system: section garbage collection for vmlinux
> >
> > Maybe this is just a test suit to
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 20:49 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> What does "it" stand for in this sentence?
"it" is your patches, and I think we got to bottom of it .. "it" (i.e.
your patches) don't actually work with modules, which is what you
originally contended ..
> My patch was tested to work in
On Wednesday 05 September 2007 20:07, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 20:14 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > On Wednesday 05 September 2007 19:38, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > > > You version doesn't work with CONFIG_MODULES right?
> > > >
> > > > It works with CONFIG_MODULES.
> > >
>
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 12:24:04PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 21:31 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 08:14:12PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 05 September 2007 19:38, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > > > > You version doesn't work with
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 21:31 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 08:14:12PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > On Wednesday 05 September 2007 19:38, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > > > You version doesn't work with CONFIG_MODULES right?
> > > >
> > > > It works with CONFIG_MODULES.
> > >
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 08:14:12PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 September 2007 19:38, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > > You version doesn't work with CONFIG_MODULES right?
> > >
> > > It works with CONFIG_MODULES.
> >
> > Really? Take a look at this version,
> >
> >
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 02:43:21PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> Build system: section garbage collection for vmlinux
>
> Newer gcc and binutils can do dead code and data removal
> at link time. It is achieved using combination of
> -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections options for gcc and
>
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 20:14 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 September 2007 19:38, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > > You version doesn't work with CONFIG_MODULES right?
> > >
> > > It works with CONFIG_MODULES.
> >
> > Really? Take a look at this version,
> >
> >
On Wednesday 05 September 2007 19:38, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > You version doesn't work with CONFIG_MODULES right?
> >
> > It works with CONFIG_MODULES.
>
> Really? Take a look at this version,
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/6/4/169
>
> Marcello had to implement a two pass build to add back
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 19:37 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 September 2007 17:29, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 14:43 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > > Build system: section garbage collection for vmlinux
> > >
> > >
> > > Newer gcc and binutils can do dead code
On Wednesday 05 September 2007 16:53, Oleg Verych wrote:
> * Wed, 5 Sep 2007 14:43:21 +0100
> * User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1
> >
> > Build system: section garbage collection for vmlinux
>
> Maybe this is just a test suit to get finish with `make XYZ static`?
They are vaguely connected in a sense that
On Wednesday 05 September 2007 17:29, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 14:43 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > Build system: section garbage collection for vmlinux
> >
> >
> > Newer gcc and binutils can do dead code and data removal
> > at link time. It is achieved using combination
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 14:43 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> Build system: section garbage collection for vmlinux
>
>
> Newer gcc and binutils can do dead code and data removal
> at link time. It is achieved using combination of
> -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections options for gcc and
>
* Wed, 5 Sep 2007 14:43:21 +0100
* User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1
>
> Build system: section garbage collection for vmlinux
>
Maybe this is just a test suit to get finish with `make XYZ static`?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Build system: section garbage collection for vmlinux
Newer gcc and binutils can do dead code and data removal
at link time. It is achieved using combination of
-ffunction-sections -fdata-sections options for gcc and
--gc-sections for ld.
Theory of operation:
Option -ffunction-sections
Build system: section garbage collection for vmlinux
Newer gcc and binutils can do dead code and data removal
at link time. It is achieved using combination of
-ffunction-sections -fdata-sections options for gcc and
--gc-sections for ld.
Theory of operation:
Option -ffunction-sections
* Wed, 5 Sep 2007 14:43:21 +0100
* User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1
Build system: section garbage collection for vmlinux
Maybe this is just a test suit to get finish with `make XYZ static`?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 14:43 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
Build system: section garbage collection for vmlinux
Newer gcc and binutils can do dead code and data removal
at link time. It is achieved using combination of
-ffunction-sections -fdata-sections options for gcc and
--gc-sections
On Wednesday 05 September 2007 17:29, Daniel Walker wrote:
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 14:43 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
Build system: section garbage collection for vmlinux
Newer gcc and binutils can do dead code and data removal
at link time. It is achieved using combination of
On Wednesday 05 September 2007 16:53, Oleg Verych wrote:
* Wed, 5 Sep 2007 14:43:21 +0100
* User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1
Build system: section garbage collection for vmlinux
Maybe this is just a test suit to get finish with `make XYZ static`?
They are vaguely connected in a sense that unused
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 19:37 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Wednesday 05 September 2007 17:29, Daniel Walker wrote:
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 14:43 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
Build system: section garbage collection for vmlinux
Newer gcc and binutils can do dead code and data
On Wednesday 05 September 2007 19:38, Daniel Walker wrote:
You version doesn't work with CONFIG_MODULES right?
It works with CONFIG_MODULES.
Really? Take a look at this version,
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/6/4/169
Marcello had to implement a two pass build to add back symbol used in
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 20:14 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Wednesday 05 September 2007 19:38, Daniel Walker wrote:
You version doesn't work with CONFIG_MODULES right?
It works with CONFIG_MODULES.
Really? Take a look at this version,
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/6/4/169
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 02:43:21PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
Build system: section garbage collection for vmlinux
Newer gcc and binutils can do dead code and data removal
at link time. It is achieved using combination of
-ffunction-sections -fdata-sections options for gcc and
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 08:14:12PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Wednesday 05 September 2007 19:38, Daniel Walker wrote:
You version doesn't work with CONFIG_MODULES right?
It works with CONFIG_MODULES.
Really? Take a look at this version,
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/6/4/169
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 21:31 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 08:14:12PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Wednesday 05 September 2007 19:38, Daniel Walker wrote:
You version doesn't work with CONFIG_MODULES right?
It works with CONFIG_MODULES.
Really? Take a
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 12:24:04PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 21:31 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 08:14:12PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Wednesday 05 September 2007 19:38, Daniel Walker wrote:
You version doesn't work with CONFIG_MODULES
On Wednesday 05 September 2007 20:07, Daniel Walker wrote:
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 20:14 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Wednesday 05 September 2007 19:38, Daniel Walker wrote:
You version doesn't work with CONFIG_MODULES right?
It works with CONFIG_MODULES.
Really? Take a
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 20:49 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
What does it stand for in this sentence?
it is your patches, and I think we got to bottom of it .. it (i.e.
your patches) don't actually work with modules, which is what you
originally contended ..
My patch was tested to work in my
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 07:46:11PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Wednesday 05 September 2007 16:53, Oleg Verych wrote:
* Wed, 5 Sep 2007 14:43:21 +0100
* User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1
Build system: section garbage collection for vmlinux
Maybe this is just a test suit to get finish with
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 10:34:38PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 07:46:11PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Wednesday 05 September 2007 16:53, Oleg Verych wrote:
* Wed, 5 Sep 2007 14:43:21 +0100
* User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1
Build system: section garbage collection
68 matches
Mail list logo
