At -O1, the intention is that we compile things in a "reasonable" amount
of time (ditto memory use). In particular, we try to especially avoid
optimizations which scale poorly on pathological cases, as is the case
for large machine-generated code.
Recommend -O1 for large machine-generated code, as has been informally
done on bugs for a while now.
This applies (broadly speaking) for both large machine-generated functions
but also to a lesser extent repetitive small-but-still-not-tiny functions
from a generator program.
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR middle-end/114855
* doc/invoke.texi (Optimize options): Mention machine-generated
code for -O1.
---
richi, does this accurately reflect the discussion we had on IRC a little
while ago?
Please push if OK, thanks.
gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
index e0a641213ae4..9fb0925ed292 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
@@ -12560,6 +12560,11 @@ With @option{-O}, the compiler tries to reduce code
size and execution
time, without performing any optimizations that take a great deal of
compilation time.
+@option{-O} is the recommended optimization level for large machine-generated
+code as a sensible balance between time taken to compile and memory use:
+higher optimization levels perform optimizations with greater algorithmic
+complexity than at @option{-O}.
+
@c Note that in addition to the default_options_table list in opts.cc,
@c several optimization flags default to true but control optimization
@c passes that are explicitly disabled at -O0.
--
2.45.2
