Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 06:41:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 06:41:43 -0500 Received: from 169.imtp.Ilyichevsk.Odessa.UA ([195.66.192.169]:8206 "EHLO Port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 06:41:43 -0500 Message-Id: <200302051143.h15BhGs18013@Port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Denis Vlasenko Reply-To: vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua To: Andreas Schwab Subject: Re: gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 13:41:34 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net References: <200302042011.h14KBuG6002791@darkstar.example.net> <200302050717.h157HTs16569@Port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 853 Lines: 22 On 5 February 2003 12:36, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Denis Vlasenko writes: > |> I am damn sure that if you compile with less sadistic alignment > |> you will get smaller *and* faster kernel. > > So why don't you try it out? GCC offers everything you need for this > experiment. I did. Others did it too on occasion. My argument was against overusing optimization techniques. You cannot speed up kernel by aligning *everything* to 32 bytes, or by unrolling all loops, or by aggressive inlining. That's too easy to work. You get kernel which is bigger *and* slower. -- vda - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/