This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC missing -flto optimizations? SPEC lbm benchmark
- From: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>
- To: joel at rtems dot org
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at golang dot org>, Hi-Angel <hiangel999 at gmail dot com>, Jun Ma <majun4950646 at gmail dot com>, "Bin.Cheng" <amker dot cheng at gmail dot com>, Steve Ellcey <sellcey at marvell dot com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 21:52:08 +0100
- Subject: Re: GCC missing -flto optimizations? SPEC lbm benchmark
- References: <email@example.com> <CAKOQZ8yKbiLZdnBwDjXPsDXgwYoBChsOh6qHpnSmKEr2LckNog@mail.gmail.com> <CAF9ehCW3MHTPp-nQ=RE-=nXjF_5AD8_OUDowbApbULbmCmqgPA@mail.gmail.com>
> Hasn't GNAT sorted Ada elements in records (e.g. structures) by size
> since near its initial addition to GCC in the mid-90s? This results in the
> largest elements up front and minimizes the need for alignment gaps.
No, that's a serious misconception, since one of the features of GNAT is to be
compatible with C by default as much as possible. But we started to do some
reordering recently when the records don't have (direct) equivalents in C.