03.05.2016, 20:14, "Nuno Santos" <nunosan...@imaginando.pt>: > Because, from my experience with the code compiled for Intel, putting -O3 > made a huge difference on the processing code of my audio app. But the same > might not be valid for arm. That’s why I’m asking.
Note that embedded CPUs usually have small caches, so larger code size might outweigh performed optimizations. > > I’m trying to squeeze the most of the C++ code performance on Android. > >> On 03 May 2016, at 18:05, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote: >> >> Em terça-feira, 3 de maio de 2016, às 18:00:07 PDT, Nuno Santos escreveu: >>> I mean -O2, like the others >> >> You didn't answer why you think that it's important to use -O2 instead of >> -Os. >> >> The reason why it's using -Os instead of -O2 was probably because the >> maintainers of the Android port thought that optimising for size was >> important, for some reason, on ARM (see also the use of Thumb). That way, >> binaries would be smaller. >> >> -- >> Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com >> Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Interest mailing list >> Interest@qt-project.org >> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest > > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest -- Regards, Konstantin _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
