From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
Message-ID: <B0000116043@stargate.astr.lu.lv>
To: Waldemar Schultz <schultz AT ma DOT tum DOT de>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 17:08:49 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Executable size: limit to acceptability?
In-reply-to: <388300BC.FF52A0CF@ma.tum.de>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b)
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

On 17 Jan 00, at 12:45, Waldemar Schultz wrote:

> Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel schrieb:
> > 
> > On 12 Jan 00, at 16:44, Damian Yerrick wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > IIRC, -O2 is better than -O3 much of the time.
> > 
> > If this is the case as you put it, could you please tell us why even
> > the makefile in Allegro uses the -O3 option?
> > 
> > IMHO I use the -O3 option and it has generated better code than
> > the -O2 option also without introducing any optimizer bugs.
> > 
> > Kalum
> 
> BTW can anyone explain the reason or benefits for using -O6 I often found in
> DJGPP distributions please.
> 

-O6 is identical with -O3 for GCC. If somebody uses PGCC then -O6 
really turns on additional optimizations. So for normal users -O2 is 
usually the best.