Mike Edenfield wrote: > More importantly, -O2 seems to be the "typical" optimization > setting, and almost all free software packages are built and > tested and generally "supported", for whatever that means in an > open-source world, under -O2. If you report a bug in a package > and you use -Os, the first thing the devs will ask is "recompile > it using normal CFLAGS and try again."
Although I agree with your reasoning above, you are contradicting yourself in the following two statements: > At least, it's no more broken under -Os than under -O2. > [...] benefits of using -Os over -O2 are minimal > compared against the possible problems it might cause. If -Os is no more broken than -O2, then it shouldn't cause any extra problems. :) > But given that disk space is dirt cheap It's not about disk space, it's about the amount that needs to be loaded from disk upon first run. > and modern OS > don't need to read an entire binary into memory to execute it, But if the entire binary is larger, each coherent subsection will be larger too, so more will have to be loaded with -O2 than with -Os. Processors are fast enough and getting faster all the time, it is only those disks that don't get any quicker -- not until we drop all those spinning platters and go solid state. Benno -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
