LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Nicholas Marquez" <>
To: "Alexey Dobriyan" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] More accessible usage of custom flags
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:34:42 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Feb 17, 2008 5:37 AM, Alexey Dobriyan <> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 09:52:51PM -0500, Nicholas Marquez wrote:
> > I submitted this patch to the zen-sources Gentoo community and got
> > much praise and has promptly been included.  This kind of thing have
> > very likely already been done in other patchsets, but I haven't seen
> > it around,
> Probably it wasn't done by other patchsets. ;-)
> > so I've gone ahead and made one.  The idea is that one can
> > enable -Os and various other options transparently through standard
> > kernel configuration, so why bar the builder from any other options to
> > pass on to gcc (et al)?
> Examples, please. Which compiler flags do you want to add to your .config?
> Speaking of -Os, it's CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE .

For example: DFORTIFY_SOURCE=2 or ftree-ch, because it's not enabled
by Os, but does indeed help often, especially in the case of various
kernel codepaths.
As to CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE, I realize.  "-Os" is just easier to
type and I assume that a kernel dev list would map the correct config
option.  ;)

> > One can indeed add one's own flags in the
> > Makefile, but this method is a good deal friendlier.  Granted, this
> > could be misused by ricers and idiots, but they'll get themselves into
> > that mess all of their own fault and we'll all go on our merry ways.
> No, they will come here and report bugs they created themselves. And
> there will be a policy: "too long CONFIG_CUSTOM_CFLAGS -- go away" and
> so on.

My point exactly.  Enabling experimental or broken options is already
ignored pretty well, so how hard is it to just create such a policy
and go about shooting down people who've messed up?  In all fairness,
most people on the mailing list are terse and, shall we say,
aggressive.  I don't really see there being much of a problem with a
few extra faulty bug reports.  I feel that the good done would
outweigh the slight overhead of a few idiots.

> > It just seems that much use could be made out of this, both in terms
> > of (sane) optimizations
> Sane optimizations should be added to main Makefile.
> > and easier access to enhanced debugging
> > opportunities.
> Which ones exactly?
> > I see that people who build a Linux kernel are largely of two types:
> > ~the ones that understand and know enough that they could, with some
> > nudging and learning, become bonafide kernel devs and
> > ~the ones that understand it to some very basic degree and can get
> > through configuring it without too much trouble (though with limited
> > understanding)
> > I believe one of the very simple things that can be addressed is to
> > make the kernel more "accessible" without harming its integrity or
> > functionality.  This involves trying to fill the gap between those two
> > types of people, allowing there to be more understanding,
> > configuration, and (down the line) development opportunities within
> > the kernel to better ease these people into learning enough to begin
> > contributing back.
> > More developers can only be a Good Thing (tm).
> In general, wrong.

Erm... what are you responding to?  I don't know what that "wrong"
refers to.  Especially considering that the paragraph you're
referencing is an opinion and personal thought.

  reply	other threads:[~2008-02-17 16:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-02-17  2:52 Nicholas Marquez
2008-02-17 10:37 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2008-02-17 16:34   ` Nicholas Marquez [this message]
2008-02-23 21:28 ` Nicholas Marquez
2008-02-23 22:04   ` Nick Andrew
2008-02-23 22:28     ` Nicholas Marquez
2008-02-23 23:39       ` Nick Andrew
2008-02-24  9:36         ` Nicholas Marquez
2008-02-24 12:50           ` Nick Andrew
2008-02-24 20:00             ` Nicholas Marquez
2008-02-28 19:45 ` Bill Davidsen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] More accessible usage of custom flags' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).