From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Apr 8 15:53:46 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F9B737B8E9; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 15:53:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id PAA13069; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 15:53:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 15:53:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <200004082253.PAA13069@apollo.backplane.com> To: Kenneth Wayne Culver Cc: Kris Kennaway , "Alexey N. Dokuchaev" , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: What are the best gcc optimization options for Pentium 200 MMX References: Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG : :Why exactly whould you not touch the -march options? I have had no :problems using them, and my system (5.0-CURRENT) seems a little faster :with -march=i686. I could be wrong though as I havn't done any exact :tests... it just seems a bit more responsive.. : :================================================================= :| Kenneth Culver | FreeBSD: The best OS around. | A couple of reasons, but the two main ones are: * They are still under development * They won't do what you expect (for example, the pentium optimizations often produce faster code on a PIII then the i686 optimizations) * They *have* been known to generate bad code, owing to being under constant development. * And your binaries won't necessarily be portable between manufacturers (AMD vs Intel), or performance may suffer. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message