On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 09:38:37AM +0100, Sven Hartrumpf wrote: > Mon, 3 Nov 2014 09:04:27 +0100, Peter.Bex wrote: > > How about restoring the optimization option to the defaults and seeing > > what breaks? For me it was highly unexpected that CHICKEN was producing > > completely unoptimized code, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one, > > so if this doesn't break on too many systems, it's a saner default. > > If it's too aggressive, we could try -O2 instead or even -O1. > > Just my experience with a large application (chicken generates one C file > of 700 KLOC) and gcc 4.8.N: > Chicken built > - with "-O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -march=corei7": has been ok for 2 years > or so > - with "-Ofast -fomit-frame-pointer -march=corei7": caused errors (last > checked > in late 2013; I can retry if someone is interested)
Cool, that's useful info! What is -Ofast? Is it -O3, or something higher? If retrying isn't too much of a hassle, I'd be interested to know the results with a recent GCC (and perhaps clang, too). Using -O2 by default would be a big improvement already, I think. Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
