https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84327
--- Comment #7 from xyzdr4gon333 at googlemail dot com ---
Ah, thank you very much! And sorry for misusing the bug tracker out of lack of
knowledge.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84327
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think you misunderstand. Listing all the individual -fxxx options without -O1
results in NO OPTIMIZATION. The difference you see is due to all the passes
enabled by -O1, not by the ones without flags.
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84327
--- Comment #5 from xyzdr4gon333 at googlemail dot com ---
Too bad. Before I have to take a longer look at the assembler code, any quick
thoughts about what optimization not available as any single option could lead
to the speedup of 4x?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84327
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to xyzdr4gon333 from comment #1)
> Actually by bisecting the additional O2-flags this can be traced down to
> -finline-small-functions ... I will open another bug for this.
I see you've opened Bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84327
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84327
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to xyzdr4gon333 from comment #0)
> This seems to be a very long-standing bug (5+ years):
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12769173/selecting-gcc-optimisation-
> flags-equivalent-to-o1
> https
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84327
--- Comment #1 from xyzdr4gon333 at googlemail dot com ---
This bug becomes more important for the actual real-life example which becomes
slower at -O2 compared to -O1! Actually in the earlier attached file you only
have to replace the `interleave
