I found Os to offer the best all around gcc and with C files.
I tested a large number of string type content files (not float or other
numeric calculations) source fileswith gcc and with clang. gcc provides a
smaller executable than does clang, and Os does much better than O3
I used CFLAGS :=
Neal Gompa wrote:
> I know the idea of moving to -O3 has been briefly mentioned before in
> other contexts when we've discussed uplifting the flags, but it looks
> like Ubuntu is moving to -O3 for Ubuntu 25.04[1]. Is there a reason
> why we shouldn't consider doing the same for Fedora Linux 42?
Ye
On 10/30/24 7:46 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> I know the idea of moving to -O3 has been briefly mentioned before in
> other contexts when we've discussed uplifting the flags, but it looks
> like Ubuntu is moving to -O3 for Ubuntu 25.04[1]. Is there a reason
> why we shouldn't consider do
If -O3 makes debugging harder, then I'm against its default use.
If there are no public, documented measurements that -O3 is better
for a specific package, then don't use -O3 for that package.
I work with tool chains for software development, and with low-level
libraries such as glibc, musl, uCli
Am 31.10.24 um 19:18 schrieb Jakub Jelinek:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 07:14:08PM +0100, Kilian Hanich via devel wrote:
While we are at it, please don't mix -O2 and -O3 while compiling the
same program.
This can break things and is really not fun to debug (and that's also
the reason why a lot of b
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 07:14:08PM +0100, Kilian Hanich via devel wrote:
> While we are at it, please don't mix -O2 and -O3 while compiling the
> same program.
>
> This can break things and is really not fun to debug (and that's also
> the reason why a lot of buildsystems don't support that).
It
Am 31.10.24 um 19:02 schrieb Jakub Jelinek:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 07:47:22PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
Isn't instruction cache footprint already part of "performance" i.e if
performance is improved it shouldn't matter and vice versa, or what am I
missing?
That is not how compilers work, ...
T
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 07:47:22PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> > > Isn't instruction cache footprint already part of "performance" i.e if
> > > performance is improved it shouldn't matter and vice versa, or what am I
> > > missing?
> >
> > That is not how compilers work, ...
> >
>
> That's not what I
On Thursday, October 31, 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 10:15:03AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 31, 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 10:46:01PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > I know the idea of moving to -O3 has been briefly m
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 at 11:11, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 10:57:02AM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 at 07:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 10:46:01PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > I know the idea of moving to -O3 has been b
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 12:36:28PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 11:26:23AM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > I seem to remember firefox uses LTO+PGO for speed ups/
> >
> > I wonder if we could provide some rpm macros and packaging guidelines
> > to assist packagers in this
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 12:12:30PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 12:36:28PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 11:26:23AM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > > I seem to remember firefox uses LTO+PGO for speed ups/
> > >
> > > I wonder if we could pro
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 07:28:35AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> SUSE has the benefit of their build system taking care of automatic
> rebuilds and simple build loops for them. This allows them to have a
> much more hands-off approach than we do, and gives their packagers
> significantly more breathin
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 11:26:23AM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> I seem to remember firefox uses LTO+PGO for speed ups/
>
> I wonder if we could provide some rpm macros and packaging guidelines
> to assist packagers in this process to make things more straight
> forward and less error prone? Is s
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 7:20 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 10:57:02AM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 at 07:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 10:46:01PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > I know the idea of moving to -O3 has been
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 10:57:02AM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 at 07:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 10:46:01PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > I know the idea of moving to -O3 has been briefly mentioned before in
> > > other contexts when we've discu
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 at 07:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 10:46:01PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > I know the idea of moving to -O3 has been briefly mentioned before in
> > other contexts when we've discussed uplifting the flags, but it looks
> > like Ubuntu is moving to -O3 fo
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 10:15:03AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> On Thursday, October 31, 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 10:46:01PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > I know the idea of moving to -O3 has been briefly mentioned before in
> > > other contexts when we've discussed up
On Thursday, October 31, 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 10:46:01PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > I know the idea of moving to -O3 has been briefly mentioned before in
> > other contexts when we've discussed uplifting the flags, but it looks
> > like Ubuntu is moving to -O3 fo
On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 10:46:01PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> I know the idea of moving to -O3 has been briefly mentioned before in
> other contexts when we've discussed uplifting the flags, but it looks
> like Ubuntu is moving to -O3 for Ubuntu 25.04[1]. Is there a reason
> why we shouldn't consid
I found some interesting ones [1][2]. The common denominator is that
between -O2 and -O3, the runtime improvement is increased a little bit
overall but in some cases it can be significant, while the power
consumption also increases. The memory access also tends to decrease.
None of those study
It would be great to see some empirical analysis about binary size
increase, its impact on RAM consumption, and actual speed benefit,
especially on Fedora. I'm having a hard time finding anything about it.
Regards,
Carlos R.F.
On 10/30/24 7:46 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
Hey folks,
I know the idea
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 г. 05:46:01 GMT+3, Neal Gompa wrote:
> Is there a reason why we shouldn't consider doing the same for Fedora Linux
42?
-O3 is known to break code which rely on undefined behavior and have bigger
binaries than -O2. Also -O3 not always improves performance.
If -O3 will be defa
Hey folks,
I know the idea of moving to -O3 has been briefly mentioned before in
other contexts when we've discussed uplifting the flags, but it looks
like Ubuntu is moving to -O3 for Ubuntu 25.04[1]. Is there a reason
why we shouldn't consider doing the same for Fedora Linux 42?
[1]: https://lis
24 matches
Mail list logo
