From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 7 09:50:07 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6900E16A420; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 09:50:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alexander@leidinger.net) Received: from redbull.bpaserver.net (redbullneu.bpaserver.net [213.198.78.217]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC26513C474; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 09:50:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alexander@leidinger.net) Received: from outgoing.leidinger.net (p54A55C2A.dip.t-dialin.net [84.165.92.42]) by redbull.bpaserver.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 497D52E0D1; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 10:50:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from webmail.leidinger.net (webmail.Leidinger.net [192.168.1.102]) by outgoing.leidinger.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C17E776E6; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 10:49:57 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=Leidinger.net; s=outgoing-alex; t=1197020997; bh=RAs8PCRU/Jta6KNZGsFnhOlwQw1Y69T8z WriD2PjK7U=; h=Message-ID:X-Priority:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject: References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Disposition:Content-Transfer-Encoding:User-Agent; b=YZdb46 Gv4pvK5lGG+a8fFlxr3p1/ieso/lcxs8SLnANGyBU8wirzPSxJN5vKMZflMNYpn9cd3 Xx3rVLAxGgrlJy0kiJATjyJWwu01py7Rx1oKUQdkXpPA0fSRDpRzZ+Fx8xVkV93lyQd I7S+D3tWEN9ddFhZy7Nx5vSCCbnAZGeeYd6+PXMaiQ8xqi/OuJl4IXV54dPxWob1RFz zDeOebSzNhqACIaDX+cKA+dqJYcKdXGQ4bgfNoHoL9wGFPXtcJ7g2c6qKPe/49SImZd 7TurAhpSaSlNTjdyrbgC0S+oSg66MNPTTNwlbPlEn3xZJ8QsFTxMvxNhI+hTNSwUCgR w== Received: (from www@localhost) by webmail.leidinger.net (8.14.1/8.13.8/Submit) id lB79nvnv017163; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 10:49:57 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net) Received: from pslux.cec.eu.int (pslux.cec.eu.int [158.169.9.14]) by webmail.leidinger.net (Horde MIME library) with HTTP; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:49:56 +0100 Message-ID: <20071207104956.g7wj6vtxwo4cwg0w@webmail.leidinger.net> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:49:56 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger To: obrien@freebsd.org References: <4756BAD3.4060905@web.de> <95938867@bb.ipt.ru> <20071205231628.GA15765@dragon.NUXI.org> <20071206072239.GA81748@team.vega.ru> <20071206084342.cv8xbmqg4k0co8kg@webmail.leidinger.net> <20071206163408.GA37676@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <20071206163408.GA37676@dragon.NUXI.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.1.4) / FreeBSD-7.0 X-BPAnet-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-BPAnet-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-BPAnet-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-14.746, required 6, BAYES_00 -15.00, DKIM_SIGNED 0.00, DKIM_VERIFIED -0.00, RDNS_DYNAMIC 0.10, TW_RW 0.08, TW_WX 0.08) X-BPAnet-MailScanner-From: alexander@leidinger.net X-Spam-Status: No Cc: Boris Samorodov , Jan Lentfer , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Problems Building 7.0-Beta3 with -Os X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 09:50:07 -0000 Quoting David O'Brien (from Thu, 6 Dec 2007 =20 08:34:08 -0800): > On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 08:43:42AM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote: >> And after the import of the new gcc in 7, a lot of people noticed, that >> the resulting binaries are larger with -Os than with -O2. > > quynh:/usr/src/usr.bin/vi> uname -m > amd64 > quynh:/usr/src/usr.bin/vi> /bin/ls -l nvi.-O* > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root ncvs 366894 Dec 6 08:21 nvi.-O2 > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root ncvs 313043 Dec 6 08:21 nvi.-Os > quynh:/usr/src/usr.bin/vi> size nvi.-O* > text data bss dec hex filename > 326132 1944 4392 332468 512b4 nvi.-O2 > 273759 1944 4392 280095 4461f nvi.-Os > > Perhaps you mean *sometimes* larger. AFAIR it makes the kernel in /boot/ much larger. > Also -Os goal is run-time foot print, not disk foot print. Could you please be a little bit more verbose? If we let alone =20 debugging stuff which can be stripped out: how can you get a smaller =20 size at run-time compared to the size on disk? If the binary size of a =20 program on disk (without debugging stuff) is much larger, how can it =20 be smaller at run-time in the end? Bye, Alexander. --=20 The difference between a good haircut and a bad one is seven days. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137