![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
> then do we need a new option 'optimize for best overall performance' > that goes for size (and the corresponding wins there) most of the > time, but is ignored where it makes a huge difference? That's -Os mostly. Some awful CPUs really need higher loop/label/function alignment though to get any performance; you could add -falign-xxx options for those. > in reality this was a flaw in gcc that on modern CPU's with the larger > difference between CPU speed and memory speed it still preferred to > unroll loops (eating more memory and blowing out the cpu cache) when > it shouldn't have. You told it to unroll loops, so it did. No flaw. If you feel the optimisations enabled by -O2 should depend on the CPU tuning selected, please file a PR. Also note that whether or not it is profitable to unroll a particular loop depends largely on how "hot" that loop is, and GCC doesn't know much about that if you don't feed it profiling information (it can guess a bit, sure, but it can guess wrong too). Segher - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-06-25 07:05 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||