[jchb]

Did you try with optimisations enabled? Here is a (trivial) program comparing gcc output between -std=c++14 and -std=c++17: https://godbolt.org/g/VLDhYf. Note that the output code size with -std=c++17 is significantly larger without optimisations (default), but it is identical with optimisations turned on!

[cominous]

I used -Os as for any embedded code where I don't care too much about the performance and rather need a compact binary.

I would love to post my code snippets from back then, but Im not home currently and the time Im back home I guess nobody will care about this anymore :D. Maybe I put it into an article.

[gpderetta]

If I had to guess, -Os prevents most inlining and in inlining is is pretty much required to remove most of the pure compile time abstraction and indirection that is used even on most trivial C++ libraries. Very likely libstdc++ make significant use of that.

The intermediate inline stages greatly expand the code size, until the point level where all the abstraction can be compiled away. I guess that -Os simply settles for a local optimum and gives up inlining early.

[alexeiz]

-Os is pretty much useless. For comparison, I compiled my (reasonably sized) project with -Os and got a 12MB statically linked binary. But with -O3, the binary size is only 4.2MB. Not only -O3 produces faster code but it's also smaller.

[msla]

In modern systems with caches and a typical penalty for going out to RAM, is it still possible for larger code to be faster?

[gpderetta]

Yes. Caches actually work. And work quite well for code. Of course there are pathological cases.

Also, static size does not mean anything. The only thing that matter is the dynamic size (i.e. the instructions that are actually fetched at runtime: code that isn't run or run rarely doesn't matter (then again, such code is a prime candidate to be compiled with -Os).