This is the mail archive of the java@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Reducing static binary size [also: -ffunction-sections, and 'where did Adam go?']

From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
To: Adam Megacz <gcj at lists dot megacz dot com>
Cc: java at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: 20 Feb 2002 12:22:04 -0700
Subject: Re: Reducing static binary size [also: -ffunction-sections, and 'where did Adam go?']
References: <1014104684.7611.10.camel@oak.uwyn.office> <87d6z11ioa.fsf@creche.redhat.com> <86y9hodnis.fsf_-_@megacz.com>
Reply-to: tromey at redhat dot com

>>>>> "Adam" == Adam Megacz <gcj@lists.megacz.com> writes:

Adam> Speaking of, my stuff requires -ffunction-sections. Since my
Adam> suggestion for a --with-jc1-option configure flag sort of fell
Adam> flat, what do you all think of making -ffunction-sections the
Adam> default for libgcj (just like libstdc++-v3)? It would probably
Adam> make sense to enable it on a platform-by-platform basis, as it
Adam> is tested.

I'm ok with the idea in principle.  I'm a bit concerned about making
this change for 3.1, since I don't know what the risks might be.

Tom

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Reducing static binary size [also: -ffunction-sections, and 'where did Adam go?']
  - From: Adam Megacz

References:
- Reducing static binary size
  - From: Geert Bevin
- Re: Reducing static binary size
  - From: Tom Tromey
- Re: Reducing static binary size [also: -ffunction-sections, and 'where did Adam go?']
  - From: Adam Megacz

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]