| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:41:50 +0200 From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org> To: david@...g.hm Cc: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>, Oleg Verych <olecom@...wer.upol.cz>, rae l <crquan@...il.com> Subject: Re: -Os versus -O2 >> -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. > > this sounds like you are saying that people wanting performance should > pick -Os. That is true on most CPUs. Some CPUs really really need some of things that -Os disables (compared to -O2) for decent performance though (branch target alignment...) > what should people pick who care more about code size then anything > else? (examples being embedded development where you may be willing to > sacrafice speed to avoid having to add additional chips to the design) -Os and tune some options. There is extensive work being done over the last few years to make GCC more suitable for embedded targets btw. But the -O1/-O2/-O3/-Os gives you four choices only, it's really not so hard to understand I hope that for more specific goals you need to add more specific options? Segher - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists