From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org)
	by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67)
	(envelope-from <gentoo-user+bounces-67000-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@gentoo.org>)
	id 1ID3gW-0002Kp-Os
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:35:13 +0000
Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l6NJXxvu017256;
	Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:33:59 GMT
Received: from smtp18.wxs.nl (smtp18.wxs.nl [195.121.247.9])
	by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l6NJSTNd009783
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:28:29 GMT
Received: from graskamp (ip51cfa1ef.direct-adsl.nl [81.207.161.239])
 by smtp18.wxs.nl
 (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.15 (built Nov 14 2006)) with ESMTP id
 <0JLN009R2CRH1S@smtp18.wxs.nl> for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Mon,
 23 Jul 2007 21:28:29 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:27:55 +0200
From: Benno Schulenberg <benno.schulenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user]  -Os = Nono?
In-reply-to: <46A4FBEF.2060409@kutulu.org>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Message-id: <200707232127.55906.benno.schulenberg@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7
References: <200707202147.17773@goldspace.net> <46A4E9C1.5010806@gmail.com>
 <46A4FBEF.2060409@kutulu.org>
X-Archives-Salt: 146170c0-cd30-4360-a041-43e04858b01c
X-Archives-Hash: bd06240ca6f5a18f9a099d4de4d1316e

Mike Edenfield wrote:
> More importantly, -O2 seems to be the "typical" optimization
> setting, and almost all free software packages are built and
> tested and generally "supported", for whatever that means in an
> open-source world, under -O2. If you report a bug in a package
> and you use -Os, the first thing the devs will ask is "recompile
> it using normal CFLAGS and try again."

Although I agree with your reasoning above, you are contradicting 
yourself in the following two statements:

> At least, it's no more broken under -Os than under -O2.
> [...]  benefits of using -Os over -O2 are minimal 
> compared against the possible problems it might cause.

If -Os is no more broken than -O2, then it shouldn't cause any extra 
problems.  :)

> But given that disk space is dirt cheap

It's not about disk space, it's about the amount that needs to be 
loaded from disk upon first run.

> and modern OS  
> don't need to read an entire binary into memory to execute it,

But if the entire binary is larger, each coherent subsection will be 
larger too, so more will have to be loaded with -O2 than with -Os.  
Processors are fast enough and getting faster all the time, it is 
only those disks that don't get any quicker -- not until we drop 
all those spinning platters and go solid state.

Benno
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list