Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:28:25 +0200 | | From | Andi Kleen <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 03/13] jump label v9: x86 support |
| |
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 04:12:11PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 15:26 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > The code generated by -Os is often terrible. > > Is anybody on the gcc side of things looking into curing that?
The problem is that the smallest code is often terrible. You could often be much better with spending a few more bytes. But -Os means "smallest"
On the other hand -Os could be likely made smaller (it often still is not very good), but I fear that would make things even worse.
We probably would need a -Osmall-but-not-terrible or so, but that's not there. > > I mean, what's the point of having an -Os if its useless in practise.
I think __hot / __cold but keeping the default at -O2 is a better approach anyways. Hot paths should be -O2. It just needs some more work.
It already works for __init/__exit at least.
-Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
|  |