[Bug lto/54078] Bytemark 46% bigger binary with -flto

2014-08-12 Thread wbrana at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078 --- Comment #10 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com --- there is difference also with O2 and branch 4.9 size in bytes 57199 -O2 55222 -O2 -flto 60681 -O2 -finline-functions 75301 -O2 -flto -finline-functions 67083 -O2 -flto -finline-functions

[Bug lto/54078] Bytemark 46% bigger binary with -flto

2013-04-15 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug lto/54078] Bytemark 46% bigger binary with -flto

2013-04-13 Thread wbrana at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078 --- Comment #5 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2013-04-13 16:43:10 UTC --- branch 4.9 without lto 101462 bytes with -flto -fwhole-program 157243 bytes - linker bfd 155488 bytes - linker gold other CFLAGS = -O3 -g0

[Bug lto/54078] Bytemark 46% bigger binary with -flto

2013-04-13 Thread wbrana at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078 --- Comment #6 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2013-04-13 17:01:27 UTC --- executable is smaller with lto when I add -fno-inline-functions 95928 vs 93880

[Bug lto/54078] Bytemark 46% bigger binary with -flto

2013-04-13 Thread wbrana at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078 --- Comment #7 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2013-04-13 17:34:23 UTC --- -fno-inline-functions makes same tests 12% or 6% slower with lto/gold NUMERIC SORT: 1689.2 : 43.32 : 14.23 NUMERIC SORT:

[Bug lto/54078] Bytemark 46% bigger binary with -flto

2013-04-13 Thread wbrana at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078 --- Comment #8 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2013-04-13 17:59:47 UTC --- lto/gold -finline-limit=43 99960 bytes NUMERIC SORT: 1471.2 : 37.73 : 12.39 -finline-limit=44 149136 bytes NUMERIC SORT

[Bug lto/54078] Bytemark 46% bigger binary with -flto

2012-07-28 Thread glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078 --- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-28 06:47:49 UTC --- (In reply to comment #0) without -flto 106856 bytes with -flto 156312 bytes But is it faster?

[Bug lto/54078] Bytemark 46% bigger binary with -flto

2012-07-28 Thread wbrana at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078 --- Comment #4 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-07-28 06:54:06 UTC --- one of tests is faster

[Bug lto/54078] Bytemark 46% bigger binary with -flto

2012-07-24 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078 --- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-24 13:22:43 UTC --- When using the linker-plugin? That is, with -fwhole-program?

[Bug lto/54078] Bytemark 46% bigger binary with -flto

2012-07-24 Thread wbrana at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078 --- Comment #2 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-07-24 13:38:03 UTC --- 156312 bytes with -s -Wall -O3 -g0 -march=core2 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -ffast-math -mssse3 -fno-PIE -fno-exceptions -fno-stack-protector -flto