https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hubicka at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #18 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Reading all the discussion again, I am leaning towards -falign-all-functions +
documentation update explaining that -falign-functions/-falign-loops are
optimizations and ignored for -Os.
I do use -falign-functions/-falign-loops when tuning for new generations of
CPUs and I definitely want to have way to specify alignment that is ignored for
cold functions (as perforance optimization) and we have this behavior since
profile code was introduced in 2002.
As an optimization, we also want to have hot functions aligned more than 8 byte
boundary needed for patching.
I will prepare patch for this and send it for disucssion. Pehraps we want
-flive-patching to also imply FUNCTION_BOUNDARY increase on x86-64? Or is live
patching useful if function entries are not aligned?
