From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Oct 25 11:48:34 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from saarinen.org (saarinen.org [203.79.82.14]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D19D37B479 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:48:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vimfuego.saarinen.org (softdnserr [::ffff:192.168.1.1]) (IDENT: foobar) by saarinen.org with esmtp; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 07:48:31 +1300 Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 07:48:30 +1300 (NZDT) From: Juha Saarinen To: Michel Talon Cc: "freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG" Subject: Re: "Malloc type lacks magic" show-stopper solved In-Reply-To: <20001025090958.A435@lpthe.jussieu.fr> Message-ID: X-S: Always Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > First you don't have the same gcc version number in FreeBSD 3.3 and 4.1 and in > Linux. Well, 4.1.1 comes with gcc 2.95.2, which is what I used for 3.3 and the Linux kernels as well. > If you read Documentation/Changes in even the most recent Linux kernel > (4.0 Test 9) it is explicitly stated that old gcc is recommended over newer > ones, and that bugs occur with newer ones. Yes, but isn't the main reason for that that the Linux kernel (at least the pre-2.4 ones) is coded in such a way that it breaks with newer versions of gcc that are less forgiving of such things? > Second, i recommend you to write a program with a significative amount of > computations and compile it with all flags possible, -O -O2 -O3 -Os and > measure the execution time. You may be surprised. Last time i did that > -O was the faster! This is the crux... I don't think anyone has done a good exhaustive test of whether or not the opts are worth it. Will look into it. Cheers, -- Juha To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message