Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:57:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:57:11 -0500 Received: from franka.aracnet.com ([216.99.193.44]:38322 "EHLO franka.aracnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:57:10 -0500 Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 09:06:30 -0800 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Alan Cox cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , lse-tech Subject: Re: gcc -O2 vs gcc -Os performance Message-ID: <233640000.1044551189@[10.10.2.4]> In-Reply-To: <1044553691.10374.20.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> References: <336780000.1044313506@flay> <224770000.1044546145@[10.10.2.4]> <1044553691.10374.20.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> 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: 776 Lines: 21 >> All done with gcc-2.95.4 (Debian Woody). These machines (16x NUMA-Q) have >> 700MHz P3 Xeons with 2Mb L2 cache ... -Os might fare better on celeron >> with a puny cache if someone wants to try that out > > gcc 3.2 is a lot smarter about -Os and it makes a very big size > difference according to the numbers the from the ACPI guys. > > Im not sure testing with a gcc from the last millenium is useful 8) I'll retest with gcc-3.2 ... maybe it'll finally show a case where it's better than 2.95 this way? 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/