mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	lse-tech <lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] gcc -O2 vs gcc -Os performance
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 16:51:14 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030206155114.GA16390@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <224770000.1044546145@[10.10.2.4]>

> All done with gcc-2.95.4 (Debian Woody). These machines (16x NUMA-Q) have 
> 700MHz P3 Xeons with 2Mb L2 cache ... -Os might fare better on celeron 
> with a puny cache if someone wants to try that out.

-Os on 2.95 is not too useful. It only started becomming useful on 3.1+,
even more so on the upcomming 3.3.

e.g. there was one report of ACPI shrinking by >60k by recompiling it
with -Os on 3.1. ACPI is only slow path code so that is completely reasonable.

Best would be of course to use profile feedback to let the compiler
decide where to generate small and where to generate fast&big code.
But that has problems with the maintainability (it will be hard to generate
the same vmlinux as users for debugging/ksymoops reading purposes)

-Andi

  reply	other threads:[~2003-02-06 15:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 65+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-02-03 23:05 gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-03 23:22 ` [Lse-tech] " Andi Kleen
2003-02-03 23:31 ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-02-04  0:43   ` J.A. Magallon
2003-02-04 13:42     ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-02-04 14:20       ` John Bradford
2003-02-04  6:54   ` Denis Vlasenko
2003-02-04  7:13     ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-04 12:25       ` Adrian Bunk
2003-02-04 15:51         ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-04 16:27           ` [Lse-tech] " Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-04 17:40             ` Patrick Mansfield
2003-02-04 17:55               ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-04  9:54     ` Bryan Andersen
2003-02-04 15:46       ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-04 19:09     ` Timothy D. Witham
2003-02-04 19:35       ` John Bradford
2003-02-04 19:44         ` Dave Jones
2003-02-04 20:11           ` John Bradford
2003-02-04 20:20             ` John Bradford
2003-02-04 20:45             ` Herman Oosthuysen
2003-02-04 21:44               ` Timothy D. Witham
2003-02-05  7:15               ` Denis Vlasenko
2003-02-05 10:36                 ` Andreas Schwab
2003-02-05 11:41                   ` Denis Vlasenko
2003-02-05 12:20                     ` Dave Jones
2003-02-05 13:10                     ` [Lse-tech] " Dipankar Sarma
2003-02-05 15:30                 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-04 21:38         ` Linus Torvalds
2003-02-04 21:54           ` John Bradford
2003-02-04 22:11             ` Linus Torvalds
2003-02-04 23:27               ` Timothy D. Witham
2003-02-04 23:21           ` Larry McVoy
2003-02-04 23:42             ` b_adlakha
2003-02-05  0:19               ` Andy Pfiffer
2003-02-04 23:51             ` Jakob Oestergaard
2003-02-05  1:03               ` Hugo Mills
2003-02-10 22:26               ` Andrea Arcangeli
2003-02-10 23:28                 ` J.A. Magallon
2003-02-04 23:51             ` Eli Carter
2003-02-05  0:27               ` Larry McVoy
2003-02-06 20:42                 ` Paul Jakma
2003-02-05  3:03             ` Tomas Szepe
2003-02-05  6:03             ` Mark Mielke
2003-02-07 16:09           ` Pavel Machek
2003-02-04 10:57   ` Padraig
2003-02-04 13:11     ` Helge Hafting
2003-02-04 13:29       ` Jörn Engel
2003-02-04 14:05       ` P
2003-02-04 20:36         ` Herman Oosthuysen
2003-02-04 12:20 ` [Lse-tech] " Dave Jones
2003-02-04 15:50   ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-10 12:13     ` Momchil Velikov
2003-02-06 15:42 ` gcc -O2 vs gcc -Os performance Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-06 15:51   ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2003-02-06 17:48   ` Alan Cox
2003-02-06 17:06     ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-06 20:38     ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-06 21:32       ` John Bradford
2003-02-06 22:12       ` Linus Torvalds
2003-02-06 22:58         ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-06 23:16           ` Linus Torvalds
2003-02-06 23:59             ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-06 23:17       ` Roger Larsson
2003-02-06 23:33         ` Martin J. Bligh

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20030206155114.GA16390@wotan.suse.de \
    --to=ak@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=mbligh@aracnet.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®