Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964922AbVITIEY (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2005 04:04:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964920AbVITIEX (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2005 04:04:23 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:24798 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964924AbVITIEV (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2005 04:04:21 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 01:03:05 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Vadim Lobanov Cc: pazke@donpac.ru, colin@realtek.com.tw, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: CONFIG_PRINTK doesn't makes size smaller Message-Id: <20050920010305.745d5ccf.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: References: <01bf01c5bdaa$9e8b81c0$106215ac@realtek.com.tw> <20050920063805.GB20363@pazke> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1743 Lines: 48 Vadim Lobanov wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Andrey Panin wrote: > > > On 263, 09 20, 2005 at 02:14:55PM +0800, colin wrote: > > > > > > Hi there, > > > I tried to make kernel with CONFIG_PRINTK off. I considered it should become > > > smaller, but it didn't because it actually isn't an empty function, and > > > there are many copies of it in vmlinux, not just one. Here is its > > > definition: > > > static inline int printk(const char *s, ...) { return 0; } > > > > > > I change the definition to this and it can greatly reduce the size by about > > > 5%: > > > #define printk(...) do {} while (0) > > > However, this definition would lead to error in some situations. For > > > example: > > > 1. (printk) > > > 2. ret = printk > > > > > > I hope someone could suggest a better definition of printk that can both > > > make printk smaller and eliminate errors. > > > > What about the macro below ? > > > > #define printk(...) ({ do { } while(0); 0; }) > > So what does the do-while loop give us in the above case? In other > words, why not just do the following...? > > #define printk(...) ({ 0; }) > You may find that when printk() is a static inline there are still copies of the control string in the generated kernel image: printk("foo %d\n", bar()); must still evaluate bar() and may cause "foo %d\n" to turn up in vmlinux. IIRC later versions of gcc do remove the unreferenced string. If printk is a macro, it all of course disappears. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/