On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 07:56 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Joe Perches <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-11-27 at 10:49 -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > >> On Thu, 2014-11-27 at 12:25 +0000, David Laight wrote: > >> > Why the change in data? > >> > >> btw: without gcov and using -O2 > >> > >> $ size arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.o* > >> text data bss dec hex filename > >> 9671 4 0 9675 25cb > >> arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.o.new > >> 10679 4 0 10683 29bb > >> arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.o.old > > > > Alexei? > > > > Is this 10% reduction in size a good reason to change the code? > > yes. > I believe you're seeing it with gcc 4.9. I wanted to double > check what 4.6 and 4.7 are doing. If they're not suddenly > increase code size then resubmit it for inclusion please.
I get these sizes for these compilers (x86-64, -O2, without profiling) $ size arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.o* text data bss dec hex filename 9266 4 0 9270 2436 arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.o.4.4.new 10042 4 0 10046 273e arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.o.4.4.old 9109 4 0 9113 2399 arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.o.4.6.new 9717 4 0 9721 25f9 arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.o.4.6.old 8789 4 0 8793 2259 arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.o.4.7.new 10245 4 0 10249 2809 arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.o.4.7.old 9671 4 0 9675 25cb arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.o.4.9.new 10679 4 0 10683 29bb arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.o.4.9.old I am a bit surprised by the size variations -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
