> The conventional wisdom is that compiling x86 without frame pointer
> results in smaller code. It turns out to be the opposite, compiling
> with frame pointers results in a smaller kernel. gcc version 3.2
> 20020822 (Red Hat Linux Rawhide 3.2-4).
I looked at 2.5.47 (with a splattering of performance patches) using
gcc 2.95.4 (Debian Woody), on a 16-way NUMA-Q, and did some kernel
compile testing. The times to do the tests were almost identical
(within error noise), but the kernel was indeed smaller
text data bss dec hex filename
1873293 396231 459388 2728912 29a3d0 2.5.47-mjb1/vmlinux
1427355 396875 455356 2279586 22c8a2 2.5.47-mjb1-frameptr/vmlinux
Wow ... that's quite some difference ;-)
> I use -momit-leaf-frame-pointer for optimization in some own
> projects, instead of the "-fomit-frame-pointer". For me, this
> results in better codesize/speed compared to both "-fomit-frame-pointer"
> or no option at all. Actually gcc-2.95 seems to support this feature
> as well, but it never made it into the 2.95 docs...
I tried this, but it seemed to be the same as -fomit-frame-pointer
(on 2.95 at least).
Given that omitting the -fomit-frame-pointer makes a smaller kernel,
that's easier to debug, I'd say this is a good thing to do unless someone
can get *negative* benchmark results.
M.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 23 2002 - 22:00:37 EST