This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: (-Os versus -O2 relation) Was: case where gcc generates bigger binaries than MSVC
- To: Mike Stump <mrs at windriver dot com>
- Subject: Re: (-Os versus -O2 relation) Was: case where gcc generates bigger binaries than MSVC
- From: Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 17:40:45 -0600
- cc: egcs at egcs dot cygnus dot com, jh at suse dot cz, mat at lcs dot mit dot edu
- Reply-To: law at cygnus dot com
In message <200005112232.PAA27352@kankakee.wrs.com>you write:
> > To: Mike Stump <mrs@windriver.com>
> > Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 15:23:03 -0600
> > From: Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com>
>
> > Any port which uses DATA_ALIGNMENT or CONSTANT_ALIGNMENT to handle
> > ABI mandated alignments is broken. There are other mechanisms for
> > handling required alignments.
>
> Does that mean that -Os can work in the backend under them, and if it
> is given, just use 1? If so, then that sounds like the right
> approach. There are only a couple of uses of DATA_ALIGNMENT and
> CONSTANT_ALIGNMENT to extend, mostly only in varasm.c.
Presumably so, though I'm not aware of anyone ever using those macros
to decrease the desired alignment. What I was thinking about was just
having the generic code not call those macros when optimizing for size.
jeff