Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 15:38:59 +0930 (CST) From: Kris Kennaway <kkennawa@physics.adelaide.edu.au> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Alex Zepeda <garbanzo@hooked.net>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: EGCS optimizations Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9904061536240.6323-100000@bragg> In-Reply-To: <199904060525.WAA04269@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 5 Apr 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> There is nothing beyond -O2. Well, there's -O3, which tries to
> inline static functions, but that typically isn't beneficial because
> it really bloats up the code and subroutine calls on intel cpus are
> very fast.
When I tested this last year, -O3 on egcs produced a 10-15% slowdown for
things like 'gzip'. OTOH, gcc's -O3 produced slightly faster code (as
I recall).
I /do/ however see noticeable (10-20%) speed improvements using
-O2 -mpentium -march=pentium compared to -O2 -mno-486 on gcc.
Kris
-----
The Feynman problem-solving algorithm: 1. Write down the problem
2. Think real hard
3. Write down the solution
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.OSF.4.10.9904061536240.6323-100000>