On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote: > I tend not to like the higher optimization levels because they cause > the compiler to attempt to turn static functions into inlines and, > in my opinion, it doesn't do a very good job of selecting which functions > to convert. The result is that I see bloated binaries with no > performance gain to show for it. > > EGCS's -Os is my favorite. Have you tried specifying -O6 and -Os (With -Os following -O6 because we want it to override the values set by -O6)? I haven't tried it for a while, but at least in an older egcs snapshot (somewhere between 1.1.2 and gcc 2.95), it worked (optimize as much as possible, but value size over speed). LLaP bero To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
- Re: gcc optimizer in -curren... Zach N. Heilig
- Re: gcc optimizer in -cu... Darryl Okahata
- Re: gcc optimizer in -cu... Zach N. Heilig
- Re: gcc optimizer in -current system ... The Hermit Hacker
- Re: gcc optimizer in -current system ... Kris Kennaway
- Re: gcc optimizer in -current system ... Matthew Dillon
- Re: gcc optimizer in -current system ... bsd
- Re: gcc optimizer in -current system ... Dan Nelson
- Re: gcc optimizer in -current system ... bsd
- Re: gcc optimizer in -current system ... Matthew Dillon
- Re: gcc optimizer in -current system ... Daniel C. Sobral
- Re: gcc optimizer in -current sys... Stephan van Beerschoten
- Re: gcc optimizer in -current sys... Garrett Wollman
- Re: gcc optimizer in -current system ... Ville-Pertti Keinonen
- Re: gcc optimizer in -current system ... Oliver Fromme
- Re: gcc optimizer in -current system ... Ville-Pertti Keinonen
- Re: gcc optimizer in -current system ... Oliver Fromme
- Re: gcc optimizer in -current system ... Oliver Fromme