https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97637
Christer Solskogen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97637
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Sometimes it may shrink the code a lot, it really depends on the code. Just
that the question whether a particular transformation will make code faster or
not is the primary question to ask, unless compiling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97637
--- Comment #4 from Christer Solskogen ---
Okay, so LTO together with O2/O3 or Ofast will not help code size that much.
I was worried that something was wrong with how GCC was configured or the
command line parameters I was using since the binar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97637
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97637
--- Comment #2 from Christer Solskogen ---
You are correct. I've replaced Ofast with O2 (but it doesn't seem to matter
that much) - with the default inline-unit-growth the binary gets 5% bigger.
With inline-unit-growth=20 the binary gets 5%~ sma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97637
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
