On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 01:29:51PM -0700, Weddington, Eric wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael Meissner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 1:58 PM > > To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Function specific optimizations call for discussion > > > > One of the things that I've been interested in is adding > > support to GCC to > > compile individual functions with specific target options. I > > first presented a > > draft at the Google mini-summit, and then another draft at > > the GCC developer > > summit last July. > <snip> > > I would welcome any thoughts > > or suggestions > > about this proposal. > > As I spoke to you about this at the Summit, the users of the AVR port, > and I would also postulate the general embedded community, would > *really* like to have this functionality, especially your Stage 1. There > are many AVR, or embedded, applications where they are generally > optimized for size, but have a time-critical function that needs to be > optimized for speed. I would vote for including both the attribute > syntax and the pragma syntax. I have many users who would be more > comfortable with the pragma syntax, despite any shortcomings.
Yes, I remember that discussion. I think a lot of people in the embedded community (and also things like one laptop per child which tend to have small memory systems) could use the ability to mark cold functions as save space, hot functions do as much optimization as possible. For example, Arm users might want to switch to thumb code generation instead of arm for cold functions. -- Michael Meissner, AMD 90 Central Street, MS 83-29, Boxborough, MA, 01719, USA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
