Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:19:42 -0600 From: Kirk Strauser <kirk@strauser.com> To: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Question about cc flags in buildkernel Message-ID: <200503090919.45725.kirk@strauser.com> In-Reply-To: <20050309022705.GF22167@cicely12.cicely.de> References: <200503072107.13313.kirk@strauser.com> <200503080950.26844.kirk@strauser.com> <20050309022705.GF22167@cicely12.cicely.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Tuesday 08 March 2005 20:27, Bernd Walter wrote: > I'm not extremly surprised by that numbers. You have a really old machine > and gcc doesn't do very well with byte oriented source on non BWX alphas. It's a minor disappointment, but no great problem. The machine's primary job is as a firewall/router, although I'd like to run some more CPU-intensive processes like Snort if I could do it without getting bogged down. > But it looks even slower than on my NoName, which is definitively less > powerfull. Under which FreeBSD version is this? 5.3-STABLE (as of last December). I upgraded from 4.x mainly to get the newer version of GCC. > I don't think O3 is really that usefull - I typically just use O2. I actually saw a pretty nice jump from -O2 to -O3 in the OpenSSL benchmarks. That was my main motivation. > Well - a K6/333 is a few years younger than your alpha. True, but although I still don't know a lot about Alphas beyond what was required to get this machine up and running, I'd have thought it'd have a comparable throughput per cycle. Like you mentioned earlier, though, GCC may not be the ideal compiler for this system. -- Kirk Strauser [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQBCLxQR5sRg+Y0CpvERAnxOAJ4xWWs5dxBz3iwneDpflZk41UiDqwCeNlPw yGbw7Gstm9P3mC0t2WUcwCs= =cVfA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200503090919.45725.kirk>