Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:52:07 +0100 (CET) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Geoff Fritz <gfritz@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd general questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Cooking LLVM in FreeBSD 8 Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0903171850470.58509@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <20090317161547.GB6295@dev.null> References: <CF72636E-0A45-4970-BAF0-FDD53C8456B7@yahoo.fr> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0903171347550.57834@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20090317140221.GA85698@dev.null> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0903171525310.58134@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20090317161547.GB6295@dev.null>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I'm a big supporter of small, efficient binaries. In fact, I'll often put > "-Os" in my /etc/make.conf CFLAGS setting. This only rarely improves raw > speed over more agressive optimization flags, however. I use it primarily it do improves speed on DSP-like code that do repetitively the same on large data set, and the code is small. > every case, even the stock gcc beat ccc. To be honest, I didn't pay too > much attention to the binary size, though I'm pretty sure both gcc variants > beat ccc in that benchmark. how much the difference was?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.0903171850470.58509>