On 13 June 2019 at 16:05, lejeczek via R-devel wrote: | I'd like to ask, and I believe this place here should be best as who can | know better, if building R with different compilers and opt flags is | something worth investing time into? | | Or maybe this a subject that somebody has already investigated. If yes | what then are the conclusion? | | Reason I ask is such that, on Centos 7.6 with different compilers from | stock repo but also from so called software collections, do not | render(with flags for performance) an R binaries which would perform any | better, according to R-benchmark-25 at least, then "vanilla" packages | shipped from distro. | | And that makes me curious - is it because R is such a case which is | prone to any compiler performance optimizations? | | Maybe there is more structured and organized way to conduct such | different-compilers-optimizations benchmarks/test? | | What do devel can say and advise with regards to compile-for-performance | subject?
Of course you do that, and add those switches to ~/.R/Makeconf. The resulting binaries may become non-portable. E.g. "at work" we use -march=native quite a bit but it means can't share libraries from a beefier dev box with skinnier deployment boxen as they don't have the same chipset even thought the are both x86_64 and use the same Linux distro. As for which switches help in which way on different compiler: that is probably best seen as a black box. Time and profile locally, I no longer try to generalize. The newer 'link-time-optimizations' can help too, they certainly make builds longer ... Dirk -- http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel