From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Oct 26 23:17:13 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 EC8D037B479; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 23:17:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vimfuego.saarinen.org (softdnserr [::ffff:192.168.1.1]) (IDENT: foobar) by saarinen.org with esmtp; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 19:17:10 +1300 Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 19:17:09 +1300 (NZDT) From: Juha Saarinen To: David O'Brien Cc: "freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG" Subject: Re: "Malloc type lacks magic" show-stopper solved In-Reply-To: <20001026231134.D9391@dragon.nuxi.com> 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 > Then you were using GCC 2.7.2 in FreeBSD 3.3 -- a very different animal > than 2.95.2. Yes, it is, but recall building 2.95.2 from the ports collection and using that instead. > WHY!?!?!? Just what the heck do you think you're achieving with -O3 plus > all those things? Have you *ever* profiled anything you're compiling > with these options? Note that -O3 is not necessarily faster code than -O. > > This seems Yet Another "I'm macho" compiler flags instance. > Please correct me if I'm wrong. Entirely possible -- but, if you don't try it, you'll never know... ;-) I thought I'd try, because anecdotal evidence suggested that the optimisations made a performance difference (a positive one, that is). If you have profiled and benchmarked code with no opts and compared it to code compiled with optimisations, I'd be interested to see the results. I mean, if there's no point, I'd like to know so that I can stop wasting time fiddling with these things... ;-) -- Juha To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message