Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 21:41:56 -0500 From: "David S. Miller" <davem@jenolan.rutgers.edu> To: hamby@aris.jpl.nasa.gov Cc: asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu, jmb@freefall.freebsd.org, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Sun Workshop compiler vs. GCC? Message-ID: <199702140241.VAA04024@jenolan.caipgeneral> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970213154912.10210A-100000@aris> (message from Jake Hamby on Thu, 13 Feb 1997 16:05:31 -0800 (PST))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 16:05:31 -0800 (PST) From: Jake Hamby <hamby@aris.jpl.nasa.gov> Your argument probably applies to -xO5, but it sounds like -xO4 performs some very useful optimizations indeed. I routinely run the Metrowerks compiler at -O7 (it has four levels of optimization, plus peephole optimization plus code scheduling), so either of these compilers sounds a lot more sophisticated than GCC, if for no other reason than the granularity of choices available. GCC has more than 20 or so specific -f* options which allow you to selectively enable and disable any specific optimization pass it has. How much more granularity would you like to have? These are all completely explained in gcc's documentation. ---------------------------------------------//// Yow! 11.26 MB/s remote host TCP bandwidth & //// 199 usec remote TCP latency over 100Mb/s //// ethernet. Beat that! //// -----------------------------------------////__________ o David S. Miller, davem@caip.rutgers.edu /_____________/ / // /_/ ><
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199702140241.VAA04024>