On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Gene Smith wrote:
> I tried -Og optimization on a recent svn snapshot of 4.8 and don't see much
> difference in the code compared to -O1. If anything, at least for one case,
> -Og is actually less debuggable than -O1, e.g., for a simple buffer
> selection like this:
On 07/01/2013 02:05 AM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Have you compared it to -Os? That seems to produce assembly closer to
what you would likely write by hand. I haven't benchmarked it much but it
gives 7-10% smaller code in general. In many cases, fewer instructions is
also a performance win.
Hi Joel
Have you compared it to -Os? That seems to produce assembly closer to what you
would likely write by hand. I haven't benchmarked it much but it gives 7-10%
smaller code in general. In many cases, fewer instructions is also a
performance win.
Gene Smith wrote:
I tried -Og optimization on a r
I tried -Og optimization on a recent svn snapshot of 4.8 and don't see
much difference in the code compared to -O1. If anything, at least for
one case, -Og is actually less debuggable than -O1, e.g., for a simple
buffer selection like this:
uint8_t* buffer;
if (condx == true)
buffer =
