On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 05:23:42PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-06-24 at 20:12 -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 05:09:16PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > if you care about the last cycle, don't specify -Os but -O2.
> > > simple as that... you get what you tell the compiler you want.
> >
> > Certain distros are shipping kernels compiled with -Os. And it's more
> > than just a couple of cycles.
>
> so those distros pick space over some cycles. Who are you to then
> override that choice ? ;-)
>
> seriously, why are we even talking about overriding a choice the user
> (or distro vendor as user) made here?
There is a real issue in the fact that compiling with -Os is available
through a kconfig option and AFAIR used by some distributions.
I doubt distros enable CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE due to size
considerations, but due to speed considerations.
I wouldn't care if CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE was hidden behind
CONFIG_EMBEDDED, but as long as it's available as a general purpose
option we have to consider it's performance.
The interesting questions are:
Does -Os still sometimes generate faster code with gcc 4.2?
If yes, why?
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: -Os versus -O2
- From: Jeff Garzik <[email protected]>
- Re: -Os versus -O2
- From: Rene Herman <[email protected]>
- Re: -Os versus -O2
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: -Os versus -O2
- References:
- [PATCH] trivial: the memset operation on a automatic array variable should be optimized out by data initialization
- From: Denis Cheng <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] trivial: the memset operation on a automatic array variable should be optimized out by data initialization
- From: Oleg Verych <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] trivial: the memset operation on a automatic array variable should be optimized out by data initialization
- From: "rae l" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] trivial: the memset operation on a automatic array variable should be optimized out by data initialization
- From: Oleg Verych <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] trivial: the memset operation on a automatic array variable should be optimized out by data initialization
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] trivial: the memset operation on a automatic array variable should be optimized out by data initialization
- From: Benjamin LaHaise <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] trivial: the memset operation on a automatic array variable should be optimized out by data initialization
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] trivial: the memset operation on a automatic array variable should be optimized out by data initialization
- From: Benjamin LaHaise <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] trivial: the memset operation on a automatic array variable should be optimized out by data initialization
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] trivial: the memset operation on a automatic array variable should be optimized out by data initialization
- Prev by Date: Re: Oops in a driver while using SLUB as a SLAB allocator
- Next by Date: [PATCH] pcmcia: ppc64 needs 32-bit ioaddr_t
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] trivial: the memset operation on a automatic array variable should be optimized out by data initialization
- Next by thread: Re: -Os versus -O2
- Index(es):
 |