On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 03:12:41PM -0800, Alex Zepeda wrote:
> > Not untested -- but you should go grab a graduate text on compiler
> > optimizations and familiarize yourself with the complexity of the problem.
>
> Care to recommend any starting places. You've piqued my interest.
http://www.ama
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 02:58:40AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> I won't even to there...
Well, the only reason I mentioned it.. was that the pgcc folks don't seem
to be too delusioned about the dangers. -ON (N > 2) is regarded as at
least possibly in danger of generating incorrect code.
> Not
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 01:19:31AM -0800, Alex Zepeda wrote:
> However, even the pgcc web page describes -O2 as safe.
I won't even to there...
> Yes, scanning thru the ML leads me to believe some of these optimizations
> are pretty much untested. Which is kinda funny, since the ia32 bits are
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 12:51:19PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Well... when you 'gzip -9' something, it just takes longer, it doesn't
> sometimes corrupt your data (afaik).
Hmm. gzip seems to be pretty good about those things. I guess it's one
of the few GNU programs to be that way. :^)
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 10:08:00AM -0800, Gordon Tetlow wrote:
> Actually, we did. Of course, our production stuff is still compiled with
> gcc 2.7.2.1. I think. Whatever the standard system compiler for
> FreeBSD-3.2 is. And that was at a time when the world was still compiled
> with -O2, wasn't
* Alex Zepeda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010313 12:25] wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 07:41:40AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
>
> > Where did you even get the idea "-O6" did *_ANYTHING_*?? Don't people
> > ever read the documentation anymore.
>
> Well, yes. But I think that with the pgcc patches
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 07:41:40AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> Where did you even get the idea "-O6" did *_ANYTHING_*?? Don't people
> ever read the documentation anymore.
Well, yes. But I think that with the pgcc patches floating around that do
use -ON N <= 9 or so.. people might get conf
From: David O'Brien [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>2. The base, system C compiler is known to produce bad code with -O2.
>We have been proclaiming this since as long as I have been with the
>Project.
Is this an issue with FreeBSD's gcc's or gcc in general? If gcc in general,
are there open
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 10:34:32PM -0800, Gordon Tetlow wrote:
> _ _
> __/\_____ (_) __ _ | |__ __/\__
> \/ / __| | | / _` | | '_ \\/
> /_ _\ \__ \ | | | (_| | | | | | /_ _\
>\/ |___
>
> _ _
> __/\_____ (_) __ _ | |__ __/\__
> \/ / __| | | / _` | | '_ \\/
> /_ _\ \__ \ | | | (_| | | | | | /_ _\
>\/ |___/ |_| \__, | |_| |_| \/
> |___/
>
>
:-)
>
>
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 10:34:32PM -0800, Gordon Tetlow wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Dan Phoenix wrote:
>
> > CC="gcc -O6 -fomit-frame-pointer" OPTIM="-O2 -DBUFFERED_LOGS"
> >
> > could some c guru tell me if this would be bad to use to an apache
> > optimization? I need to compile apache on my
On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Dan Phoenix wrote:
> CC="gcc -O6 -fomit-frame-pointer" OPTIM="-O2 -DBUFFERED_LOGS"
>
> could some c guru tell me if this would be bad to use to an apache
> optimization? I need to compile apache on my own not with ports
> looking at makefile
> in apache13 in ports collect
CC="gcc -O6 -fomit-frame-pointer" OPTIM="-O2 -DBUFFERED_LOGS"
could some c guru tell me if this would be bad to use to an apache
optimization? I need to compile apache on my own not with ports
looking at makefile
in apache13 in ports collection i see these optimization flags.
along with --m
13 matches
Mail list logo
