1 |
true, you could, but it would be much neater to use -O3 and disable |
2 |
stuff using -fno-whatever. Also, this would have the benefit of |
3 |
remaining usefull even if a new version of gcc had a diferent set of |
4 |
optimisations in -O3. |
5 |
|
6 |
but thats just my oppinion:) |
7 |
|
8 |
|
9 |
|
10 |
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 21:16:43 -0400, Douglas Breault Jr. |
11 |
<genkreton@×××××××.net> wrote: |
12 |
> You could just enable -O2 and the following: -frename-registers and -fweb. -O3 is simply -O2 plus those 3 options. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> |
15 |
> |
16 |
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 20:50:01 -0400 |
17 |
> Adam Petaccia <adam@×××××××××.com> wrote: |
18 |
> |
19 |
> > With gcc, is there a way to enable all -O3 options but function |
20 |
> > inlines? Would -fno-inline work or something like that? |
21 |
> > |
22 |
> > Mario Domenech Goulart wrote: |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> > >Hello, |
25 |
> > > |
26 |
> > >There's an interesting discussion in the OpenBSD mailing |
27 |
> > >list about the use of inline. |
28 |
> > > |
29 |
> > >Here's the beginning of the thread about this topic: |
30 |
> > > |
31 |
> > >,----[ http://www.sigmasoft.com/cgi-bin/wilma_hiliter/openbsd-tech/200407/msg00175.html ] |
32 |
> > >| inline considered harmful. |
33 |
> > >| |
34 |
> > >| * To: tech@×××××××.org |
35 |
> > >| * Subject: inline considered harmful. |
36 |
> > >| * From: Artur Grabowski <art@××××××××.org> |
37 |
> > >| * Date: 21 Jul 2004 03:54:46 +0200 |
38 |
> > >| * User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 |
39 |
> > >| |
40 |
> > >| Today we did a bunch of removal of inline functions in the kernel. |
41 |
> > >| It all started to make floppies fit, but now it's a quest. |
42 |
> > >| |
43 |
> > >| If you think that I'm crazy doing this because it might hurt your |
44 |
> > >| precious performance, go back to your vax and leave the performance |
45 |
> > >| tuning to people who have a cache. |
46 |
> > >| |
47 |
> > >| Every single inline we removed today (and there are more in the |
48 |
> > >| pipeline and even more waiting to be fixed) shrunk the code and MADE |
49 |
> > >| IT FASTER. Yes, modern cpus have something called "cache". The cache |
50 |
> > >| prefers the code to be smaller, rather than free from function calls. |
51 |
> > >| Yes, some cpus have expensive function call overhead. Don't use them. |
52 |
> > >| i386 has quite expensive function calls, on the other hand it doesn't |
53 |
> > >| have any relevant amount of registers either. So a function call |
54 |
> > >| instead of the same function inlined can potentially make the job |
55 |
> > >| easier for the register allocator in the compiler which could eat the |
56 |
> > >| overhead. At the same time the instruction cache can run the same code |
57 |
> > >| in the same place, instead of loading it from main memory 4711 times. |
58 |
> > >| And guess what? The stack on i386 is in the cache too, so the function |
59 |
> > >| call overhead isn't that bad anyway. |
60 |
> > >| |
61 |
> > >| I'm tired of seeing code where everything is made inline just because |
62 |
> > >| someone acted on a meme that hasn't been true for over a decade. Bloat, |
63 |
> > >| bloat and more bloat. Since people can't use inline correctly (it does |
64 |
> > >| have valid and correct uses), from now on inline in the OpenBSD kernel |
65 |
> > >| is considered to be a bug until proven otherwise. So. Next time I see |
66 |
> > >| code that adds to the bloat with inlines, I expect performance figures |
67 |
> > >| and kernel size comparisons that show that the inline actually |
68 |
> > >| contributes anything. Otherwise the code does not go in. |
69 |
> > >| |
70 |
> > >| There's still a lot of work to be done in the kernel (yes, macros can |
71 |
> > >| be evil too, just see nfs), so send diffs. And there's a whole |
72 |
> > >| unexplored field in userland too. |
73 |
> > >| |
74 |
> > >| //art |
75 |
> > >`---- |
76 |
> > > |
77 |
> > >Mario |
78 |
> > > |
79 |
> > > |
80 |
> > >-- |
81 |
> > >gentoo-performance@g.o mailing list |
82 |
> > > |
83 |
> > > |
84 |
> > > |
85 |
> > > |
86 |
> > |
87 |
> > -- |
88 |
> > gentoo-performance@g.o mailing list |
89 |
> > |
90 |
> |
91 |
> |
92 |
> |
93 |
|
94 |
-- |
95 |
gentoo-performance@g.o mailing list |