[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <e6d26e7ee86cc527095de2716f285aff@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:08:23 +0200
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>, david@...g.hm,
Oleg Verych <olecom@...wer.upol.cz>, rae l <crquan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: -Os versus -O2
> In my experience, -Os produced faster code on gcc-2.95 than -O2 or -O3.
On what CPU? The effect of different optimisations varies
hugely between different CPUs (and architectures).
> It was not only because of cache considerations, but because gcc used
> different tricks to avoid poor optimizations, and at the end, the CPU
> ended executing the alternative code faster.
-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.
> With gcc-3.3, -Os show roughly the same performance as -O2 for me on
> various programs. However, with gcc-3.4, I noticed a slow down with
> -Os. And with gcc-4, using -Os optimizes only for size, even if the
> output code is slow as hell. I've had programs whose speed dropped
> by 70% using -Os on gcc-4.
Well you better report those! <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla>
> But in some situtations, it's desirable to have the smallest possible
> kernel whatever its performance. This goes for installation CDs for
> instance.
There are much better ways to achieve that.
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