Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 10:21:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 10:21:13 -0500 Received: from franka.aracnet.com ([216.99.193.44]:54726 "EHLO franka.aracnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 10:21:12 -0500 Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 07:30:08 -0800 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua, Herman Oosthuysen cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance Message-ID: <193350000.1044459007@[10.10.2.4]> In-Reply-To: <200302050717.h157HTs16569@Port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> References: <200302042011.h14KBuG6002791@darkstar.example.net> <3E40264C.5050302@WirelessNetworksInc.com> <200302050717.h157HTs16569@Port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 771 Lines: 19 > GCC already went this way, i.e. it aligns functions and loops by > ridiculous (IMHO) amounts like 16 bytes. That's 7,5 bytes per alignment > on average. Now count lk functions and loops and mourn for lost icache. > Or just disassemble any .o module and read the damn code. > > This is the primary reason why people report larger kernels for GCC 3.x > > I am damn sure that if you compile with less sadistic alignment > you will get smaller *and* faster kernel. There's only one real way to know that. Do it, test it. M. - 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/