* Markus Trippelsdorf <mar...@trippelsdorf.de> wrote:
> 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).
In my (past) experience the main win from -flto is not due to better
hot/cold decisions, but simply due to more aggressive dead code
elimination. -flto has less of an effect on code that is actually
being executed.
Which isn't to be sneered at, but it's far less of a direct effect as
branch probabilities are, which cut to the core of most hotpaths in
the kernel.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
