Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:57:25 -0700
From: Gary Kline <kline@sage.thought.org>
To: Tony Maher <anthony.maher@uts.edu.au>
Cc: Gary Kline <kline@sage.thought.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Stefan Lambrev <stefan.lambrev@sun-fish.com>
Subject: Re: optimization levels for 6-STABLE build{kernel,world}
Message-ID: <20060914045725.GB92358@thought.org>
In-Reply-To: <45089D47.6070005@uts.edu.au>
References: <200609130905.k8D95idk062789@lurza.secnetix.de> <4507CC9B.60704@sun-fish.com> <20060913234934.GA92067@thought.org> <45089D47.6070005@uts.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 10:07:35AM +1000, Tony Maher wrote: > Gary Kline wrote: > > > <deleted> > > > > A couple of things. Will having gcc unroll loops have any > > negative consequences? (I can't imagine how:: but better > > informed than to have something crash inexplicability.) > > With 6.X safe at -O2 and with -funroll-loops, that should be > > a slight gain, right? (It also will make an upgrade from 5.5 > > to 6.[12] that much more rational.) > > -funroll-loops affect loader see > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2006-September/028145.html > Right. This is probably what Chuck Swiger was talking about. I've never had this problems on my 5.[345] releases. And not with 6.1 (knock-wood!!). I've just upgraded to -RELEASE and going to rebuild overnight on the server that traped out. With -funroll-loops gone :-) gary > -- > tonym -- Gary Kline kline@thought.org www.thought.org Public service Unix
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060914045725.GB92358>