On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 08:25:43PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> Gary Kline wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 08:19:49PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Danny Pansters wrote:
> >>
>
> No problem. -funroll-loops might not buy you too much other than a few
> less instructions overall but I'm not sure how intelligent gcc is at
> unrolling loops. It seemed like there was a difference between
> optimizations in the 4.x branch compared to the 3.4.x sub branch. They
> made a lot of improvements in the 4.x branch though.. it's just that
> some of those improvements broke code, so that's probably why FreeBSD
> doesn't have gcc-4.x in the base system.
Until one of my hardware buddes can swap memory from an unsed
Kayak into my "new" (koff-koff) one, I have to be careful about
the added bytes that loop unrolling costs. It's ballpark 10%
with the default gcc. I'm building the 4.x stuff now with no
++CFLAGS. The compiler guys know their stuff. If any good and
surprising news happens, I'll post it. "Unix: get every last
billionth-of-a-penny's worth out of your hardware." ah, life!
gary
>
> Cheers :).
> -Garrett
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
--
Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public Service Unix
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
