> On Nov 10, 2016, at 8:16 PM, Nicolai Stange <nicsta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
>> There is no way to ask for somewhat fast and somewhat small at the
>> same time, which seems to be what you want?
>
> No, I want small, possibly at the cost of performance to the extent of
> what's sensible. What sensible actually is is what my question is about.
>
> Example: A (hypothetical) code size saving of 0.00000000001% at the cost
> of 10000000000x slower code certainly isn't. But 0.1% at the cost of
> some additional 0.5us here and there -- no clue.
>
> So, summarizing, I'm not asking whether I should use -O2 or -Os or
> whatever, but whether the current behaviour I'm seeing with -Os is
> intended/expected quantitatively.
If you care enough to ask this question, my answer is that you should compile
your application a bunch of different ways -- -Os, -O2, -O3, as well as a
variety of the fine grained optimization flags -- and pick the result that best
achieves what you're looking for.
paul
