[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1182734240.26621.2.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:17:20 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: david@...g.hm
Cc: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>, Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
Oleg Verych <olecom@...wer.upol.cz>, rae l <crquan@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: -Os versus -O2
On Sun, 2007-06-24 at 18:08 -0700, david@...g.hm wrote:
> >
> > on a system level, size can help performance because you have more
> > memory available for other things. It also reduces download size and
> > gives you more space on the live CD....
> >
> > if you want to make things bigger again, please do this OUTSIDE the
> > "optimize for size" option. Because that TELLS you to go for size.
>
> then do we need a new option 'optimize for best overall performance' that
> goes for size (and the corresponding wins there) most of the time, but is
> ignored where it makes a huge difference?
that isn't so easy. Anything which doesn't have a performance tradeoff
is in -O2 already. So every single thing in -Os costs you performance on
a micro level.
The translation to macro level depends greatly on how things are used
(you even have to factor in download times etc)... so that is a fair
question to leave up to the user... which is what there is today.
--
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org
-
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