public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/88345] -Os overrides -falign-functions=N on the command line
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2023 09:38:10 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-88345-4-1X9UNOtrfL@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-88345-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #18 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Reading all the discussion again, I am leaning towards -falign-all-functions +
documentation update explaining that -falign-functions/-falign-loops are
optimizations and ignored for -Os.
I do use -falign-functions/-falign-loops when tuning for new generations of
CPUs and I definitely want to have way to specify alignment that is ignored for
cold functions (as perforance optimization) and we have this behavior since
profile code was introduced in 2002.
As an optimization, we also want to have hot functions aligned more than 8 byte
boundary needed for patching.
I will prepare patch for this and send it for disucssion. Pehraps we want
-flive-patching to also imply FUNCTION_BOUNDARY increase on x86-64? Or is live
patching useful if function entries are not aligned?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-12-06 9:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <bug-88345-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2020-09-11 10:52 ` koen.zandberg at inria dot fr
2022-09-01 7:24 ` kito at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-12 11:34 ` mark at kernel dot org
2023-01-12 16:11 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-13 12:56 ` mark at kernel dot org
2023-01-17 16:26 ` ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-17 16:37 ` kito at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-23 14:15 ` mark at kernel dot org
2023-09-12 11:47 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-09-12 12:35 ` matz at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-22 13:20 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-12-06 9:38 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2023-12-06 13:38 ` matz at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-12-06 17:20 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2023-12-06 18:02 ` matz at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-12-07 10:49 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-01 20:22 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-24 17:13 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-88345-4-1X9UNOtrfL@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).