Re: [PATCH] Make gcc -align options .config-settable

[Grzegorz Kulewski]

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Denis Vlasenko wrote:

> On Friday 08 October 2004 12:20, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Denis Vlasenko <vda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > Resend.
> > >
> > > With all alignment options set to 1 (minimum alignment),
> > > I've got 5% smaller vmlinux compared to one built with
> > > default code alignment.
> > >
> > > Rediffed against 2.6.9-rc3.
> > > Please apply.
> >
> > I agree with the basic idea (the big alignments also always annoy
> > me when I look at disassembly), but I think your CONFIG options
> > are far too complicated. I don't think anybody will go as far as
> > to tune loops vs function calls.
> >
> > I would just do a single CONFIG_NO_ALIGNMENTS that sets everything to
> > 1, that should be enough.
>
> For me, yes, but there are people which are slightly less obsessed
> with code size than me.
>
> They might want to say "try to align to 16 bytes if
> it costs less than 5 bytes" etc.
>
> Also bencmarking people may do little research on real usefulness of
> various kinds of alignment.

I think that removing aligns completly will be very bad. I am Gentoo user 
and I set my user space CFLAGS for all system to -falign-loops 
-fno-align-<everything else>. I did not tested it in depth, but my simple 
tests show that unaligning loops is a very bad idea. Unaligning functions 
is safer since small and fast functions should be always inlined.


Thanks,

Grzegorz Kulewski

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/