[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150411144135.GB31416@x4>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 16:41:35 +0200
From: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Align jump targets to 1 byte boundaries
On 2015.04.10 at 06:18 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/10/2015 05:50 AM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> >
> > However, I'm an -Os guy. Expect -O2 people to disagree :)
> >
>
> The problem with -Os is that the compiler will make *any* tradeoffs to
> save a byte. It is really designed to squeeze as much code into a
> fixed-size chunk, e.g. a ROM, as possible.
>
> We have asked for an -Okernel mode from the gcc folks forever. It
> basically would mean "-Os except when really dumb."
If you want the best of both worlds perhaps you should reconsider Andy's
LTO patch? With -flto gcc automatically optimizes all functions that it
considers cold for size. So you could expect some code size savings even
with -O2 (or -O3).
--
Markus
--
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