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: Should -fcross-jumping be part of -O1?

From: Jamie Lokier <jamie at shareable dot org>
To: Scott Robert Ladd <coyote at coyotegulch dot com>
Cc: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 22:26:24 +0000
Subject: Re: Should -fcross-jumping be part of -O1?
References: <3FC0DCD0.9000106@coyotegulch.com> <20031123162248.GA336@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <3FC0EC7E.7070800@coyotegulch.com> <20031123173321.GO15575@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <3FC0F7A6.4010103@coyotegulch.com> <20031123181903.GW15575@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <3FC11F13.2090708@coyotegulch.com>

Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> I'm certainly aware of the debates on the Linux Kernel list, in regard 
> to the size of code produced by GCC (and the compiler's compilation speed).

Notably, some people say that kernels optimised for size (-Os) run
_faster_ than kernels optimised for "speed" (-O2).

-- Jamie

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Should -fcross-jumping be part of -O1?
  - From: Scott Robert Ladd

References:
- Should -fcross-jumping be part of -O1?
  - From: Scott Robert Ladd
- Re: Should -fcross-jumping be part of -O1?
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: Should -fcross-jumping be part of -O1?
  - From: Scott Robert Ladd
- Re: Should -fcross-jumping be part of -O1?
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: Should -fcross-jumping be part of -O1?
  - From: Scott Robert Ladd
- Re: Should -fcross-jumping be part of -O1?
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: Should -fcross-jumping be part of -O1?
  - From: Scott Robert Ladd

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