https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88231
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|minor |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88231
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> Can we do such an optimization without GAS information about size of every
> function?
My thought was that we could use alignment alone if we didn't know the sizes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88231
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88231
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Andi Kleen from comment #4)
> I'm not sure it's a good idea to do this. Often the goal is not to get the
> absolute smallest code, but to get code that minimizes cache line usage.
> This is import
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88231
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
The feature already exists at -Os by default (i.e., all functions are by
default minimally aligned). The suggestion here is only to let GCC minimize
the amount of padding it adds to functions in order to alig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88231
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88231
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88231
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
I see that with -Os GCC already optimizes space by reducing the alignment of
functions from the default 16 on i86 to 1 (in the absence of attribute
aligned), so this would seem to be just a missed opportunity.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88231
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This shouldn't be too hard to solve. Reording based on alignment should be
easy to be taken into account.
