From: Freddie Chopin <freddie_chopin@op.pl>
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: LTO vs GCC 8
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 20:04:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f25ddea3319d22461f4ef7149497b79cd8c3f841.camel@op.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5AF99E67.4050004@westcontrol.com>
On Mon, 2018-05-14 at 16:34 +0200, David Brown wrote:
> Interesting. Making these sections and then using gc-sections should
> only remove code that is not used - LTO should do that anyway.
My guess - expressed in the other e-mail to the list - is that the
things LTO cannot remove but --gc-sections can are objects from
toolchain library.
> Have you tried with -ffunction-sections and not -fdata-sections? It
> is
> the -fdata-sections that ruins -fsection-anchors - the
> -ffunction-sections doesn't have the same kind of cost.
Results:
- -ffunction-sections + -fdata-sections = 124396 ROM + 3484 RAM
- -ffunction-sections = 125168 ROM + 3676 RAM
- -ffunction-sections + -fsection-anchors = 125168 ROM + 3676 RAM
- -ffunction-sections + -fsection-anchors + -fno-common = 125168 ROM +
3676 RAM
Generated executables for the second, third and fourth case are
identical - assembly listings for these three cases have no differences
at all.
I've also tried with -fno-section-anchors, and this makes a minor
(negative) difference - 125352 ROM + 3676 RAM.
> No, -fsection-anchors has plenty of use for fixed-position eabi code.
> ...
> The code is clearly bigger and slower, and uses more anchors in the
> code
> section.
>
> Note that to get similar improvements with non-static data, you need
> "-fno-common" - a flag that I believe should be the default for the
> compiler.
I cannot reproduce this here ); Don't get me wrong - if there's a
"free" way to improve code size/speed with some compiler flags which I
did not use previously, then I'm very much interested, however in my
particular case the best result (size-wise) I get is with just
-ffunction-sections + -fdata-sections. The difference is not huge, but
it's also not negligible. Maybe this has to do with different compiler
versions we are comparing (4.8 vs 8.1)? I guess this is not LTO (which
I did not enable for these measurements), as you did not mention it in
your flags...
Regards,
FCh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-15 20:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-10 21:32 Freddie Chopin
2018-05-11 9:19 ` Richard Biener
2018-05-11 11:06 ` David Brown
2018-05-11 15:50 ` Freddie Chopin
2018-05-11 16:51 ` Richard Biener
2018-05-15 19:39 ` Freddie Chopin
2018-05-15 20:13 ` Freddie Chopin
2018-05-16 5:26 ` Richard Biener
2018-05-14 14:34 ` David Brown
2018-05-15 20:04 ` Freddie Chopin [this message]
2018-05-16 7:37 ` David Brown
2018-05-11 15:33 ` Freddie Chopin
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=f25ddea3319d22461f4ef7149497b79cd8c3f841.camel@op.pl \
--to=freddie_chopin@op.pl \
--cc=gcc@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).