This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

From: Eric Christopher <echristo at apple dot com>
To: Dave Korn <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>
Cc: "'Paul Brook'" <paul at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, "'Joerg Wunsch'" <joerg_wunsch at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de>, "'Steven Bosscher'" <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>, "'Eric Weddington'" <eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com>, "'Anatoly Sokolov'" <aesok at post dot ru>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:20:21 -0700
Subject: Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues
References: <1725A3B8-E035-4B47-828B-7500316AD32C@elis.ugent.be> <000301c7813b$47b2eb30$140412ac@cso.atmel.com> <20070417221246.GC82697@uriah.heep.sax.de> <200704172327.12704.paul@codesourcery.com> <027f01c78146$6fdbad30$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>

increase code size? I feel I must be missing something really obvious... is it just that the other optimisations that become possible on inline code usually compensate?

That or the savings from not having to save/restore registers, set up the frame, etc as well.

-eric

Follow-Ups:
- Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues
  - From: Dale Johannesen

References:
- GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues
  - From: Kenneth Hoste
- RE: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues
  - From: Eric Weddington
- Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues
  - From: Joerg Wunsch
- Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues
  - From: Paul Brook
- RE: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues
  - From: Dave Korn

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]