From owner-freebsd-current Wed May 26 15:27:59 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mordred.cs.ucla.edu (Mordred.CS.UCLA.EDU [131.179.192.128]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62D9C14DF7 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 15:27:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from scottm@mordred.cs.ucla.edu) Received: from mordred.cs.ucla.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mordred.cs.ucla.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA17737; Wed, 26 May 1999 15:27:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from scottm@mordred.cs.ucla.edu) Message-Id: <199905262227.PAA17737@mordred.cs.ucla.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: "David Schwartz" Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: More compiler option comparisons In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 May 1999 21:34:34 PDT." <000001bea731$0e713990$021d85d1@whenever.youwant.to> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 15:27:52 -0700 From: Scott Michel Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I don't recall that the FreeBSD version of egcs is built with Haifa turned on, which is supposed to improve optimizations as the level is increased (more aggressive instruction scheduling.) > With egcs, the '-O' flag doesn't specify the optimization level like it > does in GCC. It specifies the desired stability of the generated code. Lower > numbers (0,1,2) request higher stability. ;) > > DS > > > Dan Nelson wrote: > > > -O4 doesn't exist in egcs (or it didn't a month or so ago). According > > > to the source, -O2 enables all optimizations except -funroll-all-loops, > > > and all -O3 does is enable -funroll-all-loops. > > > > I think I recall reading somewhere that EGCS uses -O numbers > 3 to test > > experimental optimizations. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message