From owner-freebsd-alpha Wed Mar 22 16:46:37 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org Received: from xxx.video-collage.com (xxx.video-collage.com [209.122.149.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 744FD37B8A3; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:46:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mi@video-collage.com) X-Relay-IP: ‚  Received: from dufus.video-collage.com (dufus [10.222.222.77]) by xxx.video-collage.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA08116; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:46:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from dufus.video-collage.com (localhost.video-collage.com [127.0.0.1]) by dufus.video-collage.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA79141; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:46:19 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mi@xxx) Message-Id: <200003230046.TAA79141@dufus.video-collage.com> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:46:19 -0500 (EST) From: mi@video-collage.com, UNEXPECTED_DATA_AFTER_ADDRESS@.SYNTAX-ERROR Reply-To: mi@aldan.algebra.com Subject: benefits of -ON+1 (Re: Compiler problems with -O2 ...) To: Brad Knowles Cc: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG, Howard Leadmon , freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 23 Mar, Brad Knowles wrote: = I'm sorry, at best here we're talking a few tenths of a = percentage point of increased speed (if that), and maybe a few = milliseconds saved -- right? I have some benchmark results at http://virtual-estates.net/bm/ ... It analyzes archivers (gzip and bzip). Bzip is not as hand-optimized as gzip (which uses asm on i386), and it shows -- -O3 makes it noticeably faster compared to -O, while gzip is faster with -O... -mi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message