* Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl [110606 01:15]:
On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 01:18:43PM +0200, Emil Langrock wrote:
I played around a little bit with GCC's LTO [4]. It is really impressive
for
this kind of applications. I had a size reduction and speed increase with
the
tested
Hi,
I have currently the problem that I have to use large, computing intensive
applications [1,2]. These are usually implemented in many source files. I used
in the past pseudo c files which include all other c files [3]. Of course,
this is a hack and don't work in many situation due to
On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 01:18:43PM +0200, Emil Langrock wrote:
Hi,
I have currently the problem that I have to use large, computing intensive
applications [1,2]. These are usually implemented in many source files. I
used
in the past pseudo c files which include all other c files [3]. Of
On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 01:18:43PM +0200, Emil Langrock wrote:
I played around a little bit with GCC's LTO [4]. It is really impressive for
this kind of applications. I had a size reduction and speed increase with the
tested applications. Of course, it was just a small testset and not really
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 01:15:29AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
Speed gains for compiled executables are great, though: around 20%[2].
It depends. I have code where using -flto causes no significant
improvement ( 2%) in some cases and major performance losses (-7 to
-37%) in others. This is not
5 matches
Mail list logo
