[patch] Makefile.flags: would this make more sense?

walter harms wharms at bfs.de
Tue Jun 3 20:16:01 UTC 2008


yes it makes no sense
 i would even drop -O0

(see my patch some weeks ago :)

re,
 wh


Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
> When using gdb, one would expect to have the source compiled with '-g -O0',
> and not '-g -Os'.
> 
> Index: Makefile.flags
> ===================================================================
> --- busybox-svn-/Makefile.flags	(revision 22004)
> +++ busybox-svn/Makefile.flags	(working copy)
> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@
>  # gcc 3.x emits bogus "old style proto" warning on find.c:alloc_action()
>  CFLAGS += $(call cc-ifversion, -ge, 0400, -Wold-style-definition)
> 
> -CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-Os -fno-builtin-strlen -finline-limit=0 -fomit-frame-pointer -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections,)
> +CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fno-builtin-strlen -finline-limit=0 -fomit-frame-pointer -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections,)
>  # -fno-guess-branch-probability: prohibit pseudo-random guessing
>  # of branch probabilities (hopefully makes bloatcheck more stable):
>  CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fno-guess-branch-probability,)
> @@ -47,7 +47,9 @@
>  #CFLAGS+=$(call cc-option,-Wconversion,)
> 
>  ifeq ($(CONFIG_DEBUG),y)
> -CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-g)
> +CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-g -O0,)
> +else
> +CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-Os,)
>  endif
> 
>  ifeq ($(CONFIG_BUILD_LIBBUSYBOX),y)
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 



More information about the busybox mailing list