Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 03:17:09 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Pete French <pfrench@firstcallgroup.co.uk> Cc: ertr1013@student.uu.se, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: CFLAGS Optimization Message-ID: <20010508031708.I18676@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <E14x41e-0003PI-00@dilbert.fcg.co.uk>; from pfrench@firstcallgroup.co.uk on Tue, May 08, 2001 at 10:43:26AM %2B0100 References: <20010508005303.A7567@student.uu.se> <E14x41e-0003PI-00@dilbert.fcg.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Pete French <pfrench@firstcallgroup.co.uk> [010508 03:10] wrote: > > You do know that gcc doesn't have any optimization-level above -O3 ? > > It is therefore fairly pointless to specify stuff like -O4 or -O9 > > I suspect people dont know the difference between gcc and pgcc (which ends up > being called 'gcc' on Linux I believe). pgcc does have optimisations up > to O6 - > > http://www.goof.com/pcg/pgcc-faq.html#opts I see at least one row where using -O3 turns on an option flagged as: "U" - Unstable. Not as problematic as D, but still there are some known problems with it. yikes. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [alfred@freebsd.org] Daemon News Magazine in your snail-mail! http://magazine.daemonnews.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010508031708.I18676>