On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 04:47:24PM +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote: > On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 08:09:06AM -0600, GB Clark wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Mar 2002 14:27:59 +0200 > > Dimitar Peikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 7 Mar 2002 04:01:58 -0800 (PST) > > > Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > he said -stable.. > > > > > > > > what are the malloc options on -stable? > > > > > > > > maybe we should make sure that they are null > > > > > > > > ln -s ">" /etc/malloc.conf > > > > (I hope that helps) :) > > > > > > > > > > I've tested it with : > > > > > > cc -O6 -o malloc_test malloc_test.c > > > > That -O6 does not look right from here. Do we support anything over -O2? > > ISTR that -On is exactly the same for -O2 for n > 2; or is this stale info? > Maybe GCC 3.x supports higher optimization levels; still, I don't think > this would make any significant difference.
n > 3 actually. The difference between -O2 and -O3 is that -O3 enables inlining of functions. This usually makes the generated code larger, and sometimes faster (and sometimes slower.) FreeBSD does not officially support anything above -O since there have been reports of bad code generated when compiling with -O2 or higher. (The difference in performance between -O and -O2 is usually fairly small anyway so it doesn't matter much.) -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
