<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: finally rebuilding</title>
	<atom:link href="http://wonkabar.org/2008/07/24/finally-rebuilding/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://wonkabar.org/2008/07/24/finally-rebuilding/</link>
	<description>cornflakes, cartoons, dragons, linux, multimedia, psychology, teenagers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:05:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://wonkabar.org/2008/07/24/finally-rebuilding/#comment-507</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steve]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:05:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wonkabar.org/archives/450#comment-507</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For a modern desktop, building with -Os you won&#039;t notice much differences, yes ... but in working with small systems with an incredible small amount of space and memory, your compiler settings will make a huge difference.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For a modern desktop, building with -Os you won&#8217;t notice much differences, yes &#8230; but in working with small systems with an incredible small amount of space and memory, your compiler settings will make a huge difference.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mart Raudsepp</title>
		<link>http://wonkabar.org/2008/07/24/finally-rebuilding/#comment-506</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mart Raudsepp]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:34:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wonkabar.org/archives/450#comment-506</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I basically also wanted to say what Tamas already said.
I guess I can add that if you have big CPU caches, which a Pentium D has I believe, then I don&#039;t see how -Os can be good in any way. I generally don&#039;t think twice about using -O2 if I have 1MB of L2 cache at least. If it&#039;s some old thing with some 256KB CPU cache, then I do ponder for a while before choosing though]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I basically also wanted to say what Tamas already said.<br />
I guess I can add that if you have big CPU caches, which a Pentium D has I believe, then I don&#8217;t see how -Os can be good in any way. I generally don&#8217;t think twice about using -O2 if I have 1MB of L2 cache at least. If it&#8217;s some old thing with some 256KB CPU cache, then I do ponder for a while before choosing though</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tamas</title>
		<link>http://wonkabar.org/2008/07/24/finally-rebuilding/#comment-505</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tamas]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:28:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wonkabar.org/archives/450#comment-505</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The -Os in GCC does not help with memory constrained systems, as it reduces only the code size, which makes up only a negligible proportion of an average desktop applications memory usage.

Also generally it&#039;s not slower than other optimization levels in GCC. It uses almost the same optimizations as -O2, except for missing a couple ones that increase the code size. The result should be a 0-5% performance hit, however the smaller code helps with cache locality, thus it sometimes improves performance over -O2.

Furthermore, compiler optimization barely makes any difference for typical desktop applications, they are hardly CPU bound.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The -Os in GCC does not help with memory constrained systems, as it reduces only the code size, which makes up only a negligible proportion of an average desktop applications memory usage.</p>
<p>Also generally it&#8217;s not slower than other optimization levels in GCC. It uses almost the same optimizations as -O2, except for missing a couple ones that increase the code size. The result should be a 0-5% performance hit, however the smaller code helps with cache locality, thus it sometimes improves performance over -O2.</p>
<p>Furthermore, compiler optimization barely makes any difference for typical desktop applications, they are hardly CPU bound.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

