Hi, On Wed, 31 May 2006 18:38:05 +0200 "Hemmann, Volker Armin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 May 2006 18:29, Hans-Werner Hilse wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 00:51:47 +0930 > > Raymond Lewis Rebbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If it was harmless and beneficial it'd already be included in an -O? > > > level. > > > > Probably. And it seems to be only of interest when using > > -fsched2-use-superblocks or -fsched2-use-traces. The man page entry for > > the further (included in the latter) option says: "This option is > > experimental, as not all machine descriptions used by GCC model the CPU > > closely enough to avoid unreliable results from the algorithm." > [man page excerpt] > where does it say 'experimental'? You're right. At least for gcc 4.1.1 it doesn't say this anymore. For gcc 3.4.6, though, it does. Probably that's the explanation for this all. Nervertheless, it's not set by default for optimization options. That indicates it's still considered somewhat "beta" or provides another optimization strategy than the existing -O? options (and does not have some -O? option of its own, yet). -hwh -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
