> Dear Wolf, > > thank you for testing. I am currently using -O4 as the performance gab > between -O3 and -O4 is rather large (likely because of those safety > measures). You are probably right that -O3 is more sensible; I will adapt > this for the next version and think about how to provide a "safe" and a > "fast" version concurrently. >
One possibl approach would also to split the extension into two parts: an unsafe one holding the low-level routines and a safe one for higher level wrappers doing argument checks, etc. This may or may not apply to your case (and the overhead may eat up any performance advantages), but you might keep this in mind as an idea. felix
