Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755246AbZAISLX (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jan 2009 13:11:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755150AbZAISLI (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jan 2009 13:11:08 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:37165 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754765AbZAISLG (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jan 2009 13:11:06 -0500 Message-ID: <49679270.1090600@zytor.com> Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:07:44 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081119) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds CC: Matthew Wilcox , Andi Kleen , Dirk Hohndel , Ingo Molnar , jim owens , Chris Mason , Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Gregory Haskins , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel , linux-btrfs , Thomas Gleixner , Nick Piggin , Peter Morreale , Sven Dietrich , jh@suse.cz, richard.guenther@gmail.com Subject: Re: [patch] measurements, numbers about CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y impact References: <496648C7.5050700@zytor.com> <20090109130057.GA31845@elte.hu> <49675920.4050205@hp.com> <20090109153508.GA4671@elte.hu> <49677CB1.3030701@zytor.com> <20090109084620.3c711aad@infradead.org> <20090109172011.GD26290@one.firstfloor.org> <20090109172801.GC6936@parisc-linux.org> <20090109174719.GG26290@one.firstfloor.org> <20090109173914.GD6936@parisc-linux.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1249 Lines: 28 Linus Torvalds wrote: > > So we do have special issues. And exactly _because_ we have special issues > we should also expect that some compiler defaults simply won't ever really > be appropriate for us. > That is, of course, true. However, the Linux kernel (and quite a few other kernels) is a very important customer of gcc, and adding sustainable modes for the kernel that we can rely on is probably something we can work with them on. I think the relationship between the gcc and Linux kernel people is unnecessarily infected, and cultivating a more constructive relationship would be good. I suspect a big part of the reason for the oddities is that the timeline for the kernel community from making a request into gcc until we can actually rely on it is *very* long, and so we end up having to working things around no matter what (usually with copious invective), and the gcc people have other customers with shorter lead times which therefore drive their development more. -hpa -- 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/