Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 08:43:42 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org> Cc: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru>, Jan Lentfer <Jan.Lentfer@web.de>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Problems Building 7.0-Beta3 with -Os Message-ID: <20071206084342.cv8xbmqg4k0co8kg@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20071206072239.GA81748@team.vega.ru> References: <4756BAD3.4060905@web.de> <95938867@bb.ipt.ru> <20071205231628.GA15765@dragon.NUXI.org> <20071206072239.GA81748@team.vega.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org> (from Thu, 6 Dec 2007 10:22:39 +0300= ): > On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 03:16:28PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: >> [...] -Os is a collection of >> optimizations that is between -O1 and -O2. That is -Os includes >> everything that -O1 does, and -O2 includes everything that -Os does. >> In otherwords: -O1 < -Os < -O2 (properly) >> > I read it differently. From the manpage: > > : -Os Optimize for size. -Os enables all -O2 optimizations that do not > : typically increase code size. It also performs further optimiza- > : tions designed to reduce code size. > > It says that -Os is a subset of -O2 optimizations plus some > extra optimizations. Reading further in a manpage, there's > only one, -mspace. And after the import of the new gcc in 7, a lot of people noticed, =20 that the resulting binaries are larger with -Os than with -O2. This =20 doesn't help for the original problem (not being able to compile =20 FreeBSD), but gives a hint to prefer -O2 over -Os when the problem is =20 found. Bye, Alexander. --=20 Is knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know that? http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071206084342.cv8xbmqg4k0co8kg>