https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88231
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|minor |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88231
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> Can we do such an optimization without GAS information about size of every
> function?
My thought was that we could use alignment alone if we didn't know the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88231
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88231
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Andi Kleen from comment #4)
> I'm not sure it's a good idea to do this. Often the goal is not to get the
> absolute smallest code, but to get code that minimizes cache line usage.
> This is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88231
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
The feature already exists at -Os by default (i.e., all functions are by
default minimally aligned). The suggestion here is only to let GCC minimize
the amount of padding it adds to functions in order to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88231
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88231
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88231
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
I see that with -Os GCC already optimizes space by reducing the alignment of
functions from the default 16 on i86 to 1 (in the absence of attribute
aligned), so this would seem to be just a missed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88231
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This shouldn't be too hard to solve. Reording based on alignment should be
easy to be taken into account.
