![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
> In my experience, -Os produced faster code on gcc-2.95 than -O2 or -O3. On what CPU? The effect of different optimisations varies hugely between different CPUs (and architectures). > It was not only because of cache considerations, but because gcc used > different tricks to avoid poor optimizations, and at the end, the CPU > ended executing the alternative code faster. -Os is "as fast as you can without bloating the code size", so that is the expected result for CPUs that don't need special hand-holding around certain performance pitfalls. > With gcc-3.3, -Os show roughly the same performance as -O2 for me on > various programs. However, with gcc-3.4, I noticed a slow down with > -Os. And with gcc-4, using -Os optimizes only for size, even if the > output code is slow as hell. I've had programs whose speed dropped > by 70% using -Os on gcc-4. Well you better report those! <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla> > But in some situtations, it's desirable to have the smallest possible > kernel whatever its performance. This goes for installation CDs for > instance. There are much better ways to achieve that. 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 07:11 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||