________________________________ From: Ming Cheng <chengm349@xxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 1:17 AM To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Fw: binary size Hi Jonathan, Thanks for this nice advice. I'd like to learn more about cmd size. Among text/data/bss sections, which section(s) has the most impact to the perf? You are right that people should do actual test. But for the same code, in theory, larger size's perf should be always <= smaller size's . Warm regards Ming ________________________________ From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 12:12 PM To: Ming Cheng <chengm349@xxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: gcc-help <gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Fw: binary size On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 at 11:42, Ming Cheng <chengm349@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Jonathan, > I just pasted a lib. It's applicable to binary. I am wondering whether there is a way to generate smaller binary by ver 10.2.1 close to 7.3.1? Would bigger size binary slower ? It depends why it's bigger. As I said, it's probably due to debug info, which doesn't affect performance at all. Using 'ls' to check the size is not helpful, because it doesn't tell you anything about the size of the executable code in the binary. Use 'size' to do that. Even if that shows the code is bigger, that doesn't mean it's going to be slower. The only way to tell if it's slower is to measure if it's slower. tl;dr it depends.
