On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 17:11:04 +0300 (EEST)
> Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
>
>> I got no replies, so I guess there is no will to move GCC to -O3 by
>> default, so I shouldn't bother submitting a patch?
>>
>> As a reminder, cc1 is 0-4% faster but almos
On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 17:11:04 +0300 (EEST)
Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
> I got no replies, so I guess there is no will to move GCC to -O3 by
> default, so I shouldn't bother submitting a patch?
>
> As a reminder, cc1 is 0-4% faster but almost 10% bigger executable.
> Testsuite showed no regressio
Hello,
I got no replies, so I guess there is no will to move GCC to -O3 by
default, so I shouldn't bother submitting a patch?
As a reminder, cc1 is 0-4% faster but almost 10% bigger executable.
Testsuite showed no regression. Bootstrap time is greater (don't have the
numbers) but I proposed
Hello list,
we discussed the subject in the BOF but I didn't quite get what the
consensus is, so that I can start changing things.
What I have in mind is to introduce and document a new "make release"
target that builds GCC in the fastest /stable/ way possible, for example
--enable-checking=
