X-pop3-spooler:	POP3MAIL 2.1.0 b 4 980420 -bs-
Mail-Copies-To:	never
To:	beastium-list AT Desk DOT nl
Subject:	Re: Optimizations when compiling the compiler.
References:	<199809030016 DOT TAA12871 AT indy1 DOT indy DOT net> <19980903023909 DOT 54365 AT cerebro DOT laendle>
X-Face:	(:YAD AT JS'&Kz'M}n7eX7gEvPR6U1mJ-kt;asEc2qAv;h{Yw7ckz<7+X_SYeTNAaPui:e~x$
	,A=gkt*>UPL/}\a/#C~v2%ETiAY_sx;xve0yL??JWTtX_-NUzXyP38UdW#cmN1\4(X!c3m#%IbtB-3
	Z-!xpZi!`E.s{(;aP=b11"!3wQu]1j@^V|;n=B|{l<bZV1.AI`zWV%kPCnUhcgEe\(}/_kNd6,*3ZJ
	Q3o<YQ3^u;7jS=:p0--u3msQO
X-Attribution:	sb
From:	SL Baur <steve AT xemacs DOT org>
In-Reply-To:	Marc Lehmann's message of "Thu, 3 Sep 1998 02:39:09 +0200"
Mime-Version:	1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108)
Date:	03 Sep 1998 20:52:16 -0700
Message-ID:	<m2iuj4a61b.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
X-Mailer:	Gnus v5.6.42/XEmacs 21.0 - "Irish Goat"
Sender:	Marc Lehmann <pcg AT goof DOT com>
Status:	RO
X-Status:	A
Lines:	24

Marc Lehmann <pcg AT goof DOT com> writes in beastium-list AT Desk DOT nl:

> On Wed, Sep 02, 1998 at 08:13:29PM -0500, Steve Snyder wrote:
 ...
>> So... how risky is it for me to compile pgcc 1.1a with itself, using the
>> -O5 or -O6 optimization switches?

> 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.

O.K.  I presume the -V2.7.2 is for compiling the first stage and the
-O2 is for stage2 and stage3?  What command line will build like that?

> I also don't support compilers compiled with -O6, the chance of them
> being broken (undebuggable..) is too high.

I see.

> 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...

That rather sums it up.

- Raw text -