Hi, unwind tables sounds really interesting, but does it affect the binary size when I compile with -O2 anyway?
Regards, Rasmus -------- Original Message -------- On 14 May 2017, 07:13, Walter Dnes wrote: On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 10:21:19AM +0200, Helmut Jarausch wrote > > I have switched to gcc-6.3.0 at the end of last year. > I have (re-)compiled all my packages including icewm-1.3.12-r1. > Everything works just fine. > > I did have some segfaults (with gimp) until I recompiled each package > with gcc-6.3.0 > > I have > CFLAGS="-mtune=native -O2 -msse3 -pipe -fPIC" > > in /etc/portage/make.conf Why aren't you running "-march=native"? You're probably missing quite a few features of your cpu. BTW, "-march=native" implies "-mtune=native" and "-msse3" (if the cpu supports it). Out of sheer curiousity, what does gcc report as your native cpu when you run... gcc -c -Q -march=native --help=target | grep march= > and quite a e few > CFLAGS="-O3 -mtune=native -pipe -msse -msse2 -msse3 -msse4a -m3dnow" > (for my aged AMD64 Phenom II machine) > > in /etc/portage/env/... "-O3"... yikes! Not really recommended. If you want speedup, use "-march=native" instead. In make.conf, I have... CFLAGS="-O2 -march=native -mfpmath=sse -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe -fno-unwind-tables -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables" The 2 "unwind_tables" flags reduce code bloat. See http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.busybox/36695 for details. The guys at busybox do what they can to reduce code bloat. Knocking 15% off the size of an executable or library helps. This results in faster loading at startup (less to load), and less stuff in ram cuts down on swapping. -- Walter Dnes <waltd...@waltdnes.org> I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications
