Joe Wreschnig writes: > On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 21:00 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > Joe Wreschnig writes: > > > I guess I should ask here, too. Does anyone know why Python is compiled > > > with -O3 rather than -O2? Also, does anyone know the best way to > > > override distutils on a per-arch basis to change that? > > > > There's only one optimization macro to build the interpreter and the > > modules. IMO it makes sense to build the interpreter with -O3, and > > even to build the standard modules like _sre with this optimization > > level. What can be done, is to lower the opt level after compilation > > in the package. > > > > But as you can see, even with -O2 python2.4 FTBFS on m68k. > > Regardless, -O3 has been historically buggy compared to -O2 on every > arch. Bill Allombert mentioned it was broken on x86 right now too. And > given that I've spent about 5 hours digging around trying to discover > the cause of #328587 -- or even reproduce it -- with no luck, I'm about > to blame -O3 for it. > > If there aren't numbers suggesting -O3 is a real win, I think it's a bad > idea to use it *anywhere*. It's a bad default, and an especially bad one > for something like Python modules that sit on top of a very complex > layer of code. And that's the case regardless of whether we're in the > middle of m68k breakage or not.
You oversimplify. Just reread what I did write. There have been measurements by Gregor Hoffleit in the past, please look back on the mailing lists. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
