Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Aug 2006 03:07:44 +0200 | From | Adrian Bunk <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.4.34-pre1 |
| |
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 02:41:46AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 02:35:49AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 06:45:33AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > >... > > > Sometimes it will be compilers, but not by that much. Gcc3.[34] generally > > > produce bigger code than 2.95 at -O2, but I don't think that people in the > > > embedded world still use 2.95 much. > > > > Comparing code size different gcc versions produce with -O2 is a bit > > unfair, the size of -Os code is more important in this case. > > Yes, but the code produced by gcc-3.[34] -Os is so unoptimized that it's > practically unusable for anything oocasionnaly using the CPU. I use it > mainly for bootloaders and tools like this. On the opposite, gcc-2.95 -Os > was still relatively well optimized, which often resulted in faster execution > due to smaller cache footprint. And for many programs, I have relied on this > combination.
Embedded people often care more about size than about speed. E.g. the ARM people always use -Os (in both 2.4 and 2.6).
For people not caring that much about size, the difference of the size of -O2 output shouldn't matter.
> Cheers, > Willy
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 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/
| |