Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 11:58:58 +1000 From: "Andrew Reilly" <areilly@bigpond.net.au> To: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Trouble with 4.3-RELEASE compiler Message-ID: <20010502115858.D1059@gurney.reilly.home> In-Reply-To: <20010428131414.B5681@student.uu.se>; from ertr1013@student.uu.se on Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 01:14:14PM %2B0200 References: <20010427155725.L18676@fw.wintelcom.net> <200104280035.UAA11427@ns1.rwwa.com> <20010427180834.B24927@xor.obsecurity.org> <20010428131414.B5681@student.uu.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 01:14:14PM +0200, Erik Trulsson wrote: > Generally I would say that one shouldn't use -O3 unless some measurements > have been made and -O3 can be shown to actually have a positive effect on > the code in question. I know that it's not a general consideration, but as a fan of SmallEiffel, I'd quite like -O3 to work most of the time. The issue with SmallEiffel is that (a) it uses C as it's back-end "universal assembler", and (b) tends to generate trivial subroutines for object accessor and setter methods. As a general rule, gcc's function inlining and subsequent strength reduction is effective at turning this sort of code into something that is about as efficient as one could ever want. -- Andrew To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010502115858.D1059>