xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: smaller mkfs.xfs

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: smaller mkfs.xfs
From: Ethan Benson <erbenson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 16:06:32 -0800
In-reply-to: <20010905104700.E324361@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from nathans@xxxxxxx on Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 10:47:00AM +1100
Mail-copies-to: nobody
Mail-followup-to: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <20010904043952.V14519@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010905104700.E324361@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 10:47:00AM +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:

> yes, you could link dynamically with libuuid, might help
> (esp. if you already have mkfs.ext2 on the floppy already,
> as this uses the same library).  libuuid is not very big
> though, so I doubt this will help much in practice.

i could help just enough combined with other bloat reduction im
looking into.  

> I have never compiled userspace with -Os, so don't know
> whether that will cause issues for you - I have compiled
> at -O2 and I seem to recall some gcc versions broke xfs_db
> at that optimization level (looked like bad code from gcc)
> - in particular this was the 2.95.3 gcc in Debian unstable
> several months ago (long gone though).

yes 2.95.4 is whats there now..  is there any kind of regression
testing i can do to see if any bugs are introduced by -Os ?

-- 
Ethan Benson
http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/

Attachment: pgp2XcO5c4pNA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>