From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-270278-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 16185 invoked by alias); 11 Aug 2010 08:51:27 -0000
Received: (qmail 16172 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Aug 2010 08:51:26 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-qw0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-qw0-f47.google.com) (209.85.216.47)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 08:51:20 +0000
Received: by qwg8 with SMTP id 8so9692712qwg.20        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 01:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.5.196 with SMTP id 4mr10351682qaw.373.1281516678605; Wed, 	11 Aug 2010 01:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.28.67 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 01:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4C61864B.7050008@caviumnetworks.com>
References: <4C5C20D0.5020105@codesourcery.com>	<AANLkTimmPSgpS=1RcHqZD94=yN+kT-MqNd9-i2_Ywc=t@mail.gmail.com>	<4C5C6BAA.4030703@codesourcery.com>	<AANLkTikyui9waDT8hv_30xRtBHOvb85phZhbVaO+uEs3@mail.gmail.com>	<4C6162D4.6080605@codesourcery.com>	<AANLkTim=8XK9ZVjzvJBKerQtuCB3qfsk_zR_30PcQqdn@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTik0r-56QNrQ-QLf4SF0r1K2WWwR=0TX4OjhSvhG@mail.gmail.com>	<8739um8mz5.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>	<AANLkTi=MeRRfBBYcdkdfSrstfLRTH0_NLnujHRBQyz_x@mail.gmail.com>	<20100810164720.GF6801@basil.fritz.box>	<4C61864B.7050008@caviumnetworks.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 08:53:00 -0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTikGCErinpn+Pji_vg46GTu+Wq-Nyjig+d5MKjAY@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Combine four insns
From: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc@gmail.com>, 	Bernd Schmidt <bernds@codesourcery.com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-08/txt/msg00824.txt.bz2

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 7:03 PM, David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com> wr=
ote:
> On 08/10/2010 09:47 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> To be honest I didn't fully understand why it's ok for -Os
>>>> to be 1% slower. A lot of people use -Os.
>>>
>>> Yes, and they expect the smallest code possible. This patch does seem
>>> to help for that.
>>
>> They also expect reasonable fast compilation.
>>
>
> If they did, their expectation wouldn't have come from having read the
> documentation. =A0As far as I can see, the *only* thing one should expect=
 from
> -Os is smaller code.
>
> We would all like fast compilation, but if you specify -Os, it seems to me
> that you are expressing a preference for smaller code.

Yes indeed.

Richard.

> David Daney
>