Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:47:23 -0700 From: Gary Kline <kline@tao.thought.org> To: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 5.3-Beta1: So far, so goo. Day 5. Message-ID: <20040826234722.GB26330@thought.org> In-Reply-To: <20040826203313.GA531@gothmog.gr> References: <412D10E7.8020704@makeworld.com> <20040826000715.GD89034@thought.org> <20040826203313.GA531@gothmog.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 11:33:13PM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2004-08-25 17:07, Gary Kline <kline@tao.thought.org> wrote: > > > > But Q1: how exactly, does one get rid of the debugging stuff? > > You can disable most of the debugging stuff with: > > # /bin/rm -fr /etc/malloc.conf > # ln -s ajr /etc/malloc.conf > > and then commenting our or deleting the following options from your > kernel config file: > > %%% > makeoptions DEBUG=-g # Build kernel with gdb(1) debug symbols > options KDB # Enable kernel debugger support. > options DDB # Support DDB. > options GDB # Support remote GDB. > options INVARIANTS # Enable calls of extra sanity checking > options INVARIANT_SUPPORT # Extra sanity checks of internal structures, required by INVARIANTS > options WITNESS # Enable checks to detect deadlocks and cycles > options WITNESS_SKIPSPIN # Don't run witness on spinlocks for speed > %%% I'll hack KERNCONF; thanks for the howto's and wherefor's:) But not until there is a 5.3-STABLE! ...Catchind deadlocks and not checking on spinlocks is likely wise, though. > > Disabling all of these is certainly going to yield a faster system. > > > And Q2, now that we've got gcc-3.4, would it help to use a higher > > opyimization? say, "-O3"? .... > > I'm not sure if the speed gain is significant and worth the risk. > I still use the same make.conf settings, shown below: > > NO_CPU_CFLAGS= true # Don't add -march=<cpu> to CFLAGS automatically > NO_CPU_COPTFLAGS=true # Don't add -march=<cpu> to COPTFLAGS automatically > > and I have commented out the CFLAGS and COPTFLAGS, the same way I did a > year ago and two years ago, etc. > I'l cn run my own test suites to see; you're probably right abut the speed gain, but it'll be a worthy test of gcc/g++. gary -- Gary Kline kline@thought.org www.thought.org Public service Unix
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040826234722.GB26330>