From owner-freebsd-current Tue Apr 6 13: 1: 4 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from octopus.originative (originat.demon.co.uk [158.152.220.9]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10892151D6 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 13:01:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from paul@originative.co.uk) Received: by octopus with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <2CP9J2GW>; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 20:57:05 +0100 Message-ID: From: paul@originative.co.uk To: dillon@apollo.backplane.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: EGCS optimizations Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 20:57:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew Dillon [mailto:dillon@apollo.backplane.com] > Sent: 06 April 1999 05:58 > To: current@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: EGCS optimizations > > .... > Compiling up /usr/src/usr.sbin with egcs and libc compiled with: > > -O2 160 seconds > -O2 -march=pentiumpro 162 seconds > -Os 161 seconds > > Which leads me to believe that using -Os might be beneficial. > If I'm reading that right you timed how long it took to build /usr/src/usr.sbin using egcs and libc compiled with the above optimisations? I doubt that that sort of benchmark is going to say an awful lot about the performance of the optimisation levels since compiling /usr/sr/usr.sbin is going to be affected by disk i/o performance far more than it would be by cpu performance. The relative speed differences of the different egcs/libc binaries is probably smoothed out by the i/o affects which is why the times look so similar. Something that is more cpu bound would be a better benchmark for comparing the optimisation options. Paul. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message