From owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 13 17:43:36 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C540216A4CF for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:43:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.BAYAREA.NET [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 529EE43D4C for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:43:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from [192.168.4.250] (dhcp50.pn.xcllnt.net [192.168.4.250]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id iBDHhZD0043022; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:43:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) In-Reply-To: <200412131130.59807.kirk@strauser.com> References: <200412131130.59807.kirk@strauser.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <83229A4B-4D2E-11D9-9C15-000D93C47836@xcllnt.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Marcel Moolenaar Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:43:34 -0800 To: Kirk Strauser X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) cc: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Safe (but quick) GCC settings on a PC64 with 5.3? X-BeenThere: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the Alpha List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:43:36 -0000 On Dec 13, 2004, at 9:30 AM, Kirk Strauser wrote: > Anyway, I'm planning to rebuild all of my ports to take advantage of > GCC's > new optimizations (versus the old 2.95 version they'd been previously > built > with) and the kernel to try to wring a little more performance out of > this > small system whose dmesg starts with: *snip* > I currently have these in my /etc/make.conf: > > CPUTYPE=ev45 > CFLAGS= -O -pipe -mieee > COPTFLAGS= -O -pipe I would start by raising the optimization level to 2 (as in -O2). This is our default now in -CURRENT and -STABLE and -CURRENT aren't really that far apart that it's not worth a try. You may run into an occasional compile breakage though, but I don't expect you'll see any instability. Note that some of the machine specific optimizations may only kick in at -O2. I haven't looked at it in detail for the alpha optimizations, but be aware that it might be slightly more involved than just adding a compile flag. FYI, -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net