Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:39:56 -0600 From: "Jeffrey J. Mountin" <jeff-ml@mountin.net> To: naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de (Christian Weisgerber), freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: gcc -Os optimisation broken (RELENG_4) Message-ID: <4.3.2.20000316132120.00af5ce0@207.227.119.2> In-Reply-To: <8aqksg$1ah2$1@bigeye.rhein-neckar.de> References: <38CF48CF.59A100D7@altavista.net> <38D08908.C629B55E@gorean.org> <38D08ADF.9C28C61E@cvzoom.net> <20000316023655.B64165@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 01:42 PM 3/16/00 +0100, Christian Weisgerber wrote: >David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote: > > > What??? 'pentiumpro' code isn't going to be very optimized for a Pentium > > (if it even runs at all). > >According to the gcc(1) man page, -mpentiumpro is synonymous to >-mcpu=pentiumpro, which only affects instruction scheduling but >not the actual instruction set used (for that, use -march=...). >So it certainly should run. > >If you are aware that the man page is wrong in this respect, please >tell us! Wondering why one would use -mcpu and not -march. If the code runs only on Celerons, PII's, and PIII's why would one *not* use -march. I'm curious about (possible) breakages with -mcpu or -march compared to -Ox settings which seem to break things more often than -O. Only ask, since -Ox and individual flags (rather than the mulititude added going from -O to -O2) are used far more often. Jeff Mountin - jeff@mountin.net Systems/Network Administrator FreeBSD - the power to serve 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?4.3.2.20000316132120.00af5ce0>