From: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org,
Claudiu Zissulescu <Claudiu.Zissulescu@synopsys.com>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARC: build: Turn off -Wmaybe-uninitialized for ARC gcc 4.8
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 18:31:53 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56EBFC41.7010803@synopsys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4819806.6rjMriPpyK@wuerfel>
On Friday 18 March 2016 05:43 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> I think it's dangerous to use -O3 in one architecture when nothing else
> uses it. If you don't have a strong reason to use -O3, maybe just drop that
> use the default -O2 -Wmaybe-uninitialized like everyone else does.
I know what u mean. In fact top level makefile change has bitten us atleast once.
However ARC gcc tends to generate better code (likely others do too) at -O3 and
increased inlining etc reflects in several benchmarks. Maybe its due to the
micro-architecture and smaller hardware call return stack - I'm not sure. So I'm
ready to pay that maintenance price. And it has been like this for 5+ years and I
fear that switching to -O2 might unravel something unwarranted for.
OTOH, I'd rather prefer -O3 for all arches but that ain't gonna happen for obvious
reasons :-)
> On a related note, I have submitted a patch that turns CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE
> into a choice statement, so we actually get the -Wmaybe-uninitialized warnings
> in an allyesconfig or allmodconfig build. It would be trivial to extend that
> to give the choice between -Os, -O2 and -O3, and then pick -O3 in a defconfig,
> over the -O2 default.
Is it posted already. I couldn't find it with quick googling.
Thx,
-Vineet
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com (Vineet Gupta)
To: linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] ARC: build: Turn off -Wmaybe-uninitialized for ARC gcc 4.8
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 18:31:53 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56EBFC41.7010803@synopsys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4819806.6rjMriPpyK@wuerfel>
On Friday 18 March 2016 05:43 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> I think it's dangerous to use -O3 in one architecture when nothing else
> uses it. If you don't have a strong reason to use -O3, maybe just drop that
> use the default -O2 -Wmaybe-uninitialized like everyone else does.
I know what u mean. In fact top level makefile change has bitten us atleast once.
However ARC gcc tends to generate better code (likely others do too) at -O3 and
increased inlining etc reflects in several benchmarks. Maybe its due to the
micro-architecture and smaller hardware call return stack - I'm not sure. So I'm
ready to pay that maintenance price. And it has been like this for 5+ years and I
fear that switching to -O2 might unravel something unwarranted for.
OTOH, I'd rather prefer -O3 for all arches but that ain't gonna happen for obvious
reasons :-)
> On a related note, I have submitted a patch that turns CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE
> into a choice statement, so we actually get the -Wmaybe-uninitialized warnings
> in an allyesconfig or allmodconfig build. It would be trivial to extend that
> to give the choice between -Os, -O2 and -O3, and then pick -O3 in a defconfig,
> over the -O2 default.
Is it posted already. I couldn't find it with quick googling.
Thx,
-Vineet
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: <linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org>,
Claudiu Zissulescu <Claudiu.Zissulescu@synopsys.com>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz>,
"Geert Uytterhoeven" <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
<linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARC: build: Turn off -Wmaybe-uninitialized for ARC gcc 4.8
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 18:31:53 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56EBFC41.7010803@synopsys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4819806.6rjMriPpyK@wuerfel>
On Friday 18 March 2016 05:43 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> I think it's dangerous to use -O3 in one architecture when nothing else
> uses it. If you don't have a strong reason to use -O3, maybe just drop that
> use the default -O2 -Wmaybe-uninitialized like everyone else does.
I know what u mean. In fact top level makefile change has bitten us atleast once.
However ARC gcc tends to generate better code (likely others do too) at -O3 and
increased inlining etc reflects in several benchmarks. Maybe its due to the
micro-architecture and smaller hardware call return stack - I'm not sure. So I'm
ready to pay that maintenance price. And it has been like this for 5+ years and I
fear that switching to -O2 might unravel something unwarranted for.
OTOH, I'd rather prefer -O3 for all arches but that ain't gonna happen for obvious
reasons :-)
> On a related note, I have submitted a patch that turns CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE
> into a choice statement, so we actually get the -Wmaybe-uninitialized warnings
> in an allyesconfig or allmodconfig build. It would be trivial to extend that
> to give the choice between -Os, -O2 and -O3, and then pick -O3 in a defconfig,
> over the -O2 default.
Is it posted already. I couldn't find it with quick googling.
Thx,
-Vineet
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-18 13:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-18 8:46 [PATCH] ARC: build: Turn off -Wmaybe-uninitialized for ARC gcc 4.8 Vineet Gupta
2016-03-18 8:46 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-03-18 8:46 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-03-18 9:52 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-03-18 9:52 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-03-18 10:20 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-03-18 10:20 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-03-18 10:20 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-03-18 10:29 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-03-18 10:29 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-03-18 10:43 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-03-18 10:43 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-03-18 10:43 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-03-18 12:13 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-03-18 12:13 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-03-18 13:01 ` Vineet Gupta [this message]
2016-03-18 13:01 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-03-18 13:01 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-03-18 13:41 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-03-18 13:41 ` Arnd Bergmann
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=56EBFC41.7010803@synopsys.com \
--to=vineet.gupta1@synopsys.com \
--cc=Claudiu.Zissulescu@synopsys.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=mmarek@suse.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.