Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 13:17:29 -0700 From: Kent Stewart <kstewart@owt.com> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, Peter Schultz <peter@jocose.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: setiathome-3.03_7 Message-ID: <200304211317.29400.kstewart@owt.com> In-Reply-To: <20030421200424.GB57583@rot13.obsecurity.org> References: <3EA2AA58.2070007@jocose.org> <3EA3E4E3.8050005@jocose.org> <20030421200424.GB57583@rot13.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 21 April 2003 01:04 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 07:32:35AM -0500, Peter Schultz wrote: > > >Support for a.out binaries on 5.0 requires a kernel compatibility > > >option. A native 4.x/5.0 ELF version (as well as the 2.x a.out > > >version) would be better. > > > > I'll just build 4.8 and 5.0 versions then and see how that gets by. > > I'm not sure if a 4.8 version will work on older 4.x systems (even if > it's static). This would need to be tested. > > > Yesterday I built it statically with optimized libc and libm. For > > libc I used `-O3 -pipe', because it wouldn't compile with the flags > > I used for libm and setiathome: `-O3 -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti > > -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-strict-aliasing > > -fno-common -pipe'. Since I normally use `-O -pipe', I'm hoping > > there are people here who can give me optimization suggestions. > > Would making it i686 only help? > > Yes, you should compile it with CPUTYPE=i686; I recommend against -O2 > or especially -O3 in case it creates broken code. I think multiple versions for FreeBSD is important. Linux has 386 and 686 versions. I think that is why they out perform what I am generating. Right now, a Windows command line version will process 1/4 more wus than the FreeBSD version will. Kent -- Kent Stewart Richland, WA http://users.owt.com/kstewart/index.html
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200304211317.29400.kstewart>