From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Feb 13 20:20:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA04541 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:20:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from aris (aris.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.161.113]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA04514 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:20:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by aris (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA10722; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:17:39 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:17:38 -0800 (PST) From: Jake Hamby X-Sender: hamby@aris To: "David S. Miller" cc: asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu, jmb@freefall.freebsd.org, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Sun Workshop compiler vs. GCC? In-Reply-To: <199702140241.VAA04024@jenolan.caipgeneral> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 13 Feb 1997, David S. Miller wrote: > GCC has more than 20 or so specific -f* options which allow you to > selectively enable and disable any specific optimization pass it has. > How much more granularity would you like to have? These are all > completely explained in gcc's documentation. Hmm, good point. I guess I meant that the commercial compilers seem to have MORE kinds of optimizations than GCC, and because they support relatively few targets, they can devote more time to optimizing each code generation back-end. Also, the various optimizer bugs in GCC in the past have led people to be wary to use -O2 optimization, much less try additional optimization flags. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |Jake Hamby| APT Engineer at JPL, CS student at Cal Poly, and BeOS developer!| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Life is hard..."