lists at vega.uk.net
Thu Feb 15 16:15:27 PST 2007
From: lfs-support-bounces at linuxfromscratch.org
[mailto:lfs-support-bounces at linuxfromscratch.org] On Behalf Of Ken
Sent: 10 February 2007 20:22
To: LFS Support List
Subject: Re: GCC Optimization
>(iii) Impact on your processor's caches - a bigger binary increases
>the pressure on your caches, and may mean more pages have to be read
>when a program or library is loaded. For a desktop, it is sometimes
>asserted that smaller binaries (smaller code, not removing the
>symbols to give shorter files) will provide a more responsive system.
Sorry to revisit this post... I just have one more question!
In a reply to my original post Ken Moffat made the above comment. I have
also read about this elsewhere. However, does anybody know at what point
the binary size becomes a problem for my system caches? In particular
what caches are most affected?
Is it 10% to 15% above the normal un-optimized size? Or is it much more
or even less?
Once again, many thanks! But I suspect this is a "how long is a piece of
string" type question ;--)
More information about the lfs-support