[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: gcc -O2 vs gcc -Os performance
>> 2901299 vmlinux.O2
>> 2667827 vmlinux.Os
> Well, Os is certainly smaller.

Yup. I have lots of RAM though, so unless I can see the perf increase
from cache effects, it's not desperately interesting to me personally.
If someone could do similar measurements with a puny-cache celeron chip,
it would be interesting ...

> So I suspect -Os tends to be more appropriate for user-mode code, and
> especially code with low repeat rates. Possibly the "low repeat rate"
> thing ends up being true of certain kernel subsystems too.

Fair enough. I'm not desperately interested in user-land code at the
moment, personally, but gcc is admittedly more general. Maybe we should
compile gcc itself with -Os ;-) Andi (I think) also made the observation
that the garbage-collect size for gcc3.2 may be rather small.

The observation re low repeat rate is interesting ... might be amusing
to do some really basic profile-guided optimisation on this grounds,
take readprofile / oprofile output, and compile the files that don't
get hammered at all with -Os rather than -O2. Given their low frequency
(by definition), I'm not sure that improving their icache footprint will
have a measureable effect though.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.085 / U:6.312 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site