From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Feb 13 14:15:40 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA12927
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 14:15:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from jmb@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA12899;
          Thu, 13 Feb 1997 14:15:18 -0800 (PST)
From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb>
Message-Id: <199702132215.OAA12899@freefall.freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: Sun Workshop compiler vs. GCC?
To: asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 14:15:17 -0800 (PST)
Cc: hamby@aris.jpl.nasa.gov, hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199702132125.NAA18583@vader.cs.berkeley.edu> from "Satoshi Asami" at Feb 13, 97 01:25:59 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Satoshi Asami wrote:
> 
>  * optimization than previous versions.  With the -fast option (which turns
>  * on full optimization, plus 486, Pentium, or PPro optimization as
>  * appropriate), it does seem to take about 3 times as long to compile
>  * anything as GCC (on my 486DX4/100), and so I would hope that the generated
>  * code is much better.
> 
> Well, I don't think so.  Compiler optimizations are generally the best
> examples of "law of dimishing returns". ;)

	well, options make a huge difference on sun's compiler
	(SC4.0 18 Oct 1995 C 4.0)

	compare the numbers vs the options listed below

	6009606.087651: -O5 -dalign -native -xautopar   <== strange
	6051658.950850: -xO5 -dalign -native
	3290361.568528: -xO5 -dalign
	3274313.272930: -xO5
jmb