Mail Archives: pgcc/1998/09/03/00:46:47
On Wed, Sep 02, 1998 at 08:13:29PM -0500, Steve Snyder wrote:
> In a recent message it was noted that the most dramatic improvements to
> Pentium-optimized code require the -O5 and -O6 switches. This make me
> wonder: what optimization setting were used in testing the pgcc 1.1
> release candidates?
>
> I spend a *lot* of time running my C compiler, so naturally I want it to
> run as fast as possible. Also, naturally, I want the compiler to be
> stable. I get enough instability in my own code. :-)
>
> So... how risky is it for me to compile pgcc 1.1a with itself, using the
> -O5 or -O6 optimization switches? That is, how much would I be reducing
> the dependability of compiler, as opposed to building it with itself at an
> optimization level of -O3 or -O4?
I've run, for years, an -O6 -fno-omit-frame-pointer optimized version, until
I forgot about it.
then it bite me, sicne then, I compile pgcc with -V2.7.2 -O2. I also don't
support compilers compiled with -O6, the chance of them being broken
(undebuggable..) is too high.
I believe it should be quite safe to use -O6 on pgcc in the 1.0/1.1
releases, but don't count on that...
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg AT goof DOT com |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
- Raw text -