Re: pgcc optimizationss

Marc Lehmann (pcg@goof.com)
Thu, 17 Dec 1998 22:13:04 +0100

On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 02:15:59AM -0500, Anthony Barbachan wrote:
> >Well 2.1.x seems to be ok with egcs, and egcs current + the assembler
> >patches Bernd and co have provided should be rock safe. Having said that
>
> I am assuming by assembler patches you mean pgcc, am I correct?

I hope not ;)

> >you don't want to use -O6 with the kernel. -O6 says "please go around and
> >inline things as you feel". The kernel authors have already done that and
> >made a better job of it than the compiler will
>
> What would be the maximum safe optimization level?

For gcc, its not a question of safe, but a question of "sane". -O3 won't
neccesarily produce a faster/better kernel. It will produce a much larger
kernel, thoguh, for sure.

For pgcc, higher opt-levels may make sense, turning off inlining might
be good as well. BUT, not with the current kernel.

-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@goof.com |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/