A lot of people seem to not use "-O3", because it can cause worse performance in some situations. I'm gonna leave it in my "make.conf" till someone (maybe me, if I get some free time) shows that it causes worse performance on average. Because that is really what the flags in "make.conf" should be geared toward. They should be geared toward what gives you the best performance on average (without breaking things).
I asked myself the same question, but i'm too lazy to check this out - compiling alone would take langer than one night on my box (fast cpu but tons of software), and i ask myself which tests to run and which apps to test...
I'll probably switch back to -O2, because:
- O3 is only required for functions/methods that do heavy computing without calling many system functions in between. That's only true for compiling, audio/video computing and the like.
- O3 compiled binaries are much larger, about 30-50% (not excessively tested), so loading takes a little bit longer, and some code may no longer fit into the CPU's code cache, breaking computing performance.
- As long as i don't really know about concrete examples shown by other users in comparison tests, i guess i'll choose the smaller binaries.
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
