Re: Linux 2.4.34-pre1

Adrian Bunk
2006-08-21T01:07:45Z

On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 02:41:46AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 02:35:49AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 06:45:33AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > >...
> > > Sometimes it will be compilers, but not by that much. Gcc3.[34] generally
> > > produce bigger code than 2.95 at -O2, but I don't think that people in the
> > > embedded world still use 2.95 much.
> >
> > Comparing code size different gcc versions produce with -O2 is a bit
> > unfair, the size of -Os code is more important in this case.
>
> Yes, but the code produced by gcc-3.[34] -Os is so unoptimized that it's
> practically unusable for anything oocasionnaly using the CPU. I use it
> mainly for bootloaders and tools like this. On the opposite, gcc-2.95 -Os
> was still relatively well optimized, which often resulted in faster execution
> due to smaller cache footprint. And for many programs, I have relied on this
> combination.

Embedded people often care more about size than about speed.
E.g. the ARM people always use -Os (in both 2.4 and 2.6).

For people not caring that much about size, the difference of the size
of -O2 output shouldn't matter.

> Cheers,
> Willy

cu
Adrian

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed