linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* compiling kernel with debug and optimization
@ 2003-02-10 11:11 devnetfs
  2003-02-10 11:32 ` Keith Owens
  2003-02-10 19:23 ` Pavel Machek
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: devnetfs @ 2003-02-10 11:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

Hello,

Does compiling with -g option degrade performance? IMO it should NOT.

If that's true, then why dont we compile kernels with both -g and -O2
always? Also does using -g AND -O2 cause some optimizations to be 
missed out?

Thanks in advance,

Regards,
A.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: compiling kernel with debug and optimization
  2003-02-10 11:11 compiling kernel with debug and optimization devnetfs
@ 2003-02-10 11:32 ` Keith Owens
  2003-02-10 16:28   ` devnetfs
  2003-02-10 19:23 ` Pavel Machek
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Keith Owens @ 2003-02-10 11:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: devnetfs; +Cc: linux-kernel

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 03:11:51 -0800 (PST), 
devnetfs <devnetfs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Does compiling with -g option degrade performance? IMO it should NOT.

Compiling with -g slows down compilation and link, mainly because of
the extra debugging data that has to be copied around.  -g
significantly increases disk usage.

>If that's true, then why dont we compile kernels with both -g and -O2
>always? Also does using -g AND -O2 cause some optimizations to be 
>missed out?

With gcc, compiling with -g should have no effect on the kernel.  One
of my occasional tests is to build vmlinux with and without -g, run
both through strip -g and compare the results.  They should be
identical except for the build timestamp.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: compiling kernel with debug and optimization
  2003-02-10 11:32 ` Keith Owens
@ 2003-02-10 16:28   ` devnetfs
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: devnetfs @ 2003-02-10 16:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Keith Owens; +Cc: linux-kernel

Thanks for you reply Keith :)

The reason I asked this question is -- Distro's like RH (i guess it
holds for others too) DONT distribute kernels compiled with -g and
I was wondering why? 

Agreed about the compile-time+disk overhead, but that's ONE time
affair. Analyzing a system-core-dump of a "-g" built kernel (using
MCL's crash) is much easier and fruitful than otherwise.

so is it (just) the disk-space overhead that keeps distributions 
from NOT compiling with "-g" option?!

Thanks once again,

Regards,
A.



--- Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 03:11:51 -0800 (PST), 
> devnetfs <devnetfs@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Does compiling with -g option degrade performance? IMO it should
> NOT.
> 
> Compiling with -g slows down compilation and link, mainly because of
> the extra debugging data that has to be copied around.  -g
> significantly increases disk usage.
> 
> >If that's true, then why dont we compile kernels with both -g and
> -O2
> >always? Also does using -g AND -O2 cause some optimizations to be 
> >missed out?
> 
> With gcc, compiling with -g should have no effect on the kernel.  One
> of my occasional tests is to build vmlinux with and without -g, run
> both through strip -g and compare the results.  They should be
> identical except for the build timestamp.
> 


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: compiling kernel with debug and optimization
  2003-02-10 11:11 compiling kernel with debug and optimization devnetfs
  2003-02-10 11:32 ` Keith Owens
@ 2003-02-10 19:23 ` Pavel Machek
  2003-02-12  5:20   ` devnetfs
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Machek @ 2003-02-10 19:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: devnetfs; +Cc: linux-kernel

Hi!

> Does compiling with -g option degrade performance? IMO it should NOT.
> 
> If that's true, then why dont we compile kernels with both -g and -O2
> always? 

Build with -g takes *a lot* of diskspace, like 1Gig.
								Pavel

-- 
Worst form of spam? Adding advertisment signatures ala sourceforge.net.
What goes next? Inserting advertisment *into* email?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: compiling kernel with debug and optimization
  2003-02-10 19:23 ` Pavel Machek
@ 2003-02-12  5:20   ` devnetfs
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: devnetfs @ 2003-02-12  5:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pavel Machek; +Cc: linux-kernel

--- Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > Does compiling with -g option degrade performance? IMO it should
> > NOT.
> > If that's true, then why dont we compile kernels with both -g and
> > -O2 always? 
> 
> Build with -g takes *a lot* of diskspace, like 1Gig.
> 							Pavel

Agreed. But can't distro's give two SET's of RPMS:
   1. kernel-xyz.rpm
   2. kernel-xyz-debug.rpm

where both 1,2 are same kernels compiled w/ same config and with -g.
BUT rpm [1] is a 'strip -g' output of [2]. 

So people run [1] on their production systems. And developers analyze
core-dump from these systems using [2]. Can this be done and will it
work?

Thanks in advance,

Regards,
A.


ps: Please Cc: me the reply. I am not subscribed to the list.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: compiling kernel with debug and optimization
       [not found] ` <20030210192324.GA154@elf.ucw.cz.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
@ 2003-02-11 11:11   ` Andi Kleen
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andi Kleen @ 2003-02-11 11:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pavel Machek; +Cc: linux-kernel

Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> writes:

> Hi!
> 
> > Does compiling with -g option degrade performance? IMO it should NOT.
> > 
> > If that's true, then why dont we compile kernels with both -g and -O2
> > always? 
> 
> Build with -g takes *a lot* of diskspace, like 1Gig.

With gcc 3.x and its dwarf2 default.

It's a lot smaller when you compile with -gstabs (on i386)
stabs works as well for 32bit, but is much more compact.

-Andi

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2003-02-12  5:11 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-02-10 11:11 compiling kernel with debug and optimization devnetfs
2003-02-10 11:32 ` Keith Owens
2003-02-10 16:28   ` devnetfs
2003-02-10 19:23 ` Pavel Machek
2003-02-12  5:20   ` devnetfs
     [not found] <20030210111151.31800.qmail@web20418.mail.yahoo.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
     [not found] ` <20030210192324.GA154@elf.ucw.cz.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
2003-02-11 11:11   ` Andi Kleen

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).