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: 8+ 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 9:52 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-03-18 10:20 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-03-18 10:29 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-03-18 10:43 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-03-18 12:13 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-03-18 13:01 ` Vineet Gupta [this message]
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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox