On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 12:56:16PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > Richard Guenther wrote: > > > > > >A patched GCC IMHO makes only sense if it is always-on, yet another option > > >won't help in corner cases. And corner cases is exactly what people seem > > >to care about. For this reason that we have this single release, 4.3.0, > > >that > > >behaves "bad" is already a problem. > > > > > > > The option will help embedded vendors who can guarantee that it's not a > > problem. > > For very very low values of "help". > > To be realistic it is very unlikely anybody will measure a difference > from a few more or a few less clds in a program. It's not that they're > expensive instructions and they normally don't happen in inner loops either. > > "If you enable this option you will get an optimization that you cannot > measure" @)
Which is probably true for most of GCCs options. Oh wait - you can measure the effect on compile-time and compile-time memory usage! :) ... *runs*
