I was thinking (and have been) building the emulator with -O3 as I understand from what I can gather from that -O3 prioritizes code speed over code size, and the emulator is both small already and speed-hungry….but I see there is also -Ofast in clang-3.8 (which is what my MacPro is building it with)…
This website reference says -Os and -O2 are identical: <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15548023/clang-optimization-levels <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15548023/clang-optimization-levels>> Haven’t yet benchmarked the differences between O2 and O3 within it, tho. Of course, Jeremy would know all... K > On Sep 5, 2016, at 5:32 PM, Brandon Allbery <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Fred Wright <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > But when they switched to Intel, they also switched > to -O2. This allowed them to inflate the performance benefit of the > architecture switch. :-) > > ...as long as -O2 worked. Experience from FreeBSD and from early MacPorts > experiments with -O2 is that it took -O2 a long time to actually generate > correct code in a majority of cases. > That said, it might be worth looking at again --- but, -O2 reportedly still > causes occasional problems for some programs, so be ready to bail back to -Os. > > -- > brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad http://sinenomine.net > <http://sinenomine.net/>_______________________________________________ > macports-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
