Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 01:11:45 +0100 To: "pgcc AT delorie DOT com" Subject: Re: Optimizations questions Message-ID: <19990310011145.N360@cerebro.laendle> Mail-Followup-To: "pgcc AT delorie DOT com" References: <19990309174332 DOT D2217 AT cerebro DOT laendle> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from Dmitri A. Sergatskov on Tue, Mar 09, 1999 at 03:41:52PM -0700 X-Operating-System: Linux version 2.2.2 (marc AT cerebro) (gcc driver version pgcc-2.93.04 19990131 (gcc2 ss-980929 experimental) executing gcc version 2.7.2.3) From: Marc Lehmann Reply-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: pgcc AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Tue, Mar 09, 1999 at 03:41:52PM -0700, Dmitri A. Sergatskov wrote: > On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Marc Lehmann wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 08, 1999 at 08:45:32PM -0600, Steve Bergman wrote: > > > I'm getting ready to recompile my RH5.2 system and 2.2.2 kernel. I have an > > > AMDK6-2/300. Would "-O6 -march=amdk6 -mcpu=amdk6" be reasonable options to set > > > in rpmrc? What is the status of "-fstrength-reduce" and "-funroll-all-loops" > > > > strength-reduce is fixed. it was never broken enough to warrant turning it > > off in the first place. > > > > The question with strength-reduce popped up few times on egcs list and > Michael Meissner recommended to turn it off for all register starved > CPU archs (which I think means all x86 CPUs). pgcc should be able to compensate. even more, you can't do loop unrolling without biv+giv analysis (done by the strength-reduce opt). So, unless benchmarks claim otherwise, -fstrength-reduce should not be turned off (with pgcc, that is). -- -----==- | ----==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg AT goof DOT com |e| -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |