On 2007-02-14, Grant Edwards <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's not as bad as it initially looked for this case. There's
> still some unexplained frame size overhead though. I can take
> a function like this which has a frame size of 32:
>
> void foo()
> {
> line1;
> line2;
> line3;
> line4;
> line5;
> line6;
> line7;
> line8;
> }
>
> And split it up into two functions each of which will have a
> frame size of 28:
>
> void foo1()
> {
> line1;
> line2;
> line3;
> line4;
> }
>
> void foo2()
> {
> line5;
> line6;
> line7;
> line8;
> }
Sometimes the difference is even a bit larger: as a single
function a frame size of 22, whem split, both have a framesize
of 16.
> I don't suppose there's an "optimize for frame size" option?
The -O setting does seem to make a difference. -O1 seems to
produce the smallest frame sizes with -Os in second place. -O3
is the worst. No big surprise there.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! There's enough money
at here to buy 5000 cans of
visi.com Noodle-Roni!
