From owner-freebsd-stable Tue May 1 18:59: 1 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from areilly.bpc-users.org (CPE-144-132-234-126.nsw.bigpond.net.au [144.132.234.126]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 603F537B424 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 18:58:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from areilly@bigpond.net.au) Received: (qmail 2017 invoked by uid 1000); 2 May 2001 01:58:58 -0000 From: "Andrew Reilly" Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 11:58:58 +1000 To: Erik Trulsson Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Trouble with 4.3-RELEASE compiler Message-ID: <20010502115858.D1059@gurney.reilly.home> References: <20010427155725.L18676@fw.wintelcom.net> <200104280035.UAA11427@ns1.rwwa.com> <20010427180834.B24927@xor.obsecurity.org> <20010428131414.B5681@student.uu.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010428131414.B5681@student.uu.se>; from ertr1013@student.uu.se on Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 01:14:14PM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 01:14:14PM +0200, Erik Trulsson wrote: > Generally I would say that one shouldn't use -O3 unless some measurements > have been made and -O3 can be shown to actually have a positive effect on > the code in question. I know that it's not a general consideration, but as a fan of SmallEiffel, I'd quite like -O3 to work most of the time. The issue with SmallEiffel is that (a) it uses C as it's back-end "universal assembler", and (b) tends to generate trivial subroutines for object accessor and setter methods. As a general rule, gcc's function inlining and subsequent strength reduction is effective at turning this sort of code into something that is about as efficient as one could ever want. -- Andrew To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message