David O'Brien wrote/schrieb (Saturday, March 18, 2000):
| On Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 03:18:45AM +0100, Thomas Köllmann wrote:
| | Perhaps this is a bit off topic, but can the pentium optimisations be
| | used for AMD K6 processors?
|
| I did a `make world' yesterday with
| CFLAGS=
I wrote/schrieb (Saturday, March 18, 2000):
| R Joseph Wright wrote/schrieb (Friday, March 17, 2000):
|
| | In contrast, I've been using -Os -march=pentium during the last three
| | months for buildworld and the kernel. Never had problems whatsoever.
| |
| | Perhaps this is a bit off topic,
Thomas Köllmann wrote:
I wrote/schrieb (Saturday, March 18, 2000):
| R Joseph Wright wrote/schrieb (Friday, March 17, 2000):
|
| | In contrast, I've been using -Os -march=pentium during the last three
| | months for buildworld and the kernel. Never had problems whatsoever.
| |
| |
On Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 03:18:45AM +0100, Thomas Köllmann wrote:
| Perhaps this is a bit off topic, but can the pentium optimisations be used
| for AMD K6 processors?
I did a `make world' yesterday with
CFLAGS= -O2 -pipe -march=pentium
COPTFLAGS= -O2 -pipe
David O'Brien wrote:
On Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 03:18:45AM +0100, Thomas Köllmann wrote:
If it doesn't I'll probably try `-03 -pipe -march=pentium' come next
What are people hoping to get by doing this? Are you actually doing a
scientific performance evaluation between the various
Donn Miller wrote:
It's probably more of a "placebo effect", which makes you think your
are getting a big boost in performance. I'll admit that I've never
seen a whole order or magnitude increase in performance between -O and
-mpentium-O3, or whatever - it probably gives you boosts here and
On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 10:09:37PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
Donn Miller wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
Hmm... If I have a PII (Actually celeron 300A) or a PIII, which is
better, 'pentium' or 'pentiumpro'? I would think the latter, but I've
learned not to assume where gcc is
On 16 Mar, Doug Barton wrote:
In the interests of providing another datapoint, I tried my old, boring
P5 machine, and with -Os -march=pentium buildworld bombed trying to
compile cc1plus in the build tools phase. Backing off to -O worked. The
kernel was ok with -Os -march=pentium.
As
Maxim Sobolev wrote:
I've just upgraded my production server to the 4.0-RELEASE and found that
squid23 when compiled with -Os option dying with signal 11 on each attempt to
load page. When I recompiled it with -O fault disappeared. After some digging
into the sources with gdb I found that
Maxim Sobolev wrote:
Well... where is "name" being set? That would help.
It is not clear what do you mean, please explain.
"name" is the name of the variable that is passed as NULL when compiled
with -Os. In the code trace you posted, we do not see any reference to
this variable up to the
In contrast, I've been using -Os -march=pentium during the last three
months for buildworld and the kernel. Never had problems whatsoever.
Perhaps this is a bit off topic, but can the pentium optimisations be used
for AMD K6 processors?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
"Daniel C. Sobral" wrote:
Maxim Sobolev wrote:
I've just upgraded my production server to the 4.0-RELEASE and found that
squid23 when compiled with -Os option dying with signal 11 on each attempt to
load page. When I recompiled it with -O fault disappeared. After some digging
into the
R Joseph Wright wrote/schrieb (Friday, March 17, 2000):
| In contrast, I've been using -Os -march=pentium during the last three
| months for buildworld and the kernel. Never had problems whatsoever.
|
| Perhaps this is a bit off topic, but can the pentium optimisations be used
| for AMD K6
I think that 'pentium' would result in code that isn't as optimized as
'pentiumpro', but I've heard that 'pentium' has a lot less problems.
What??? 'pentiumpro' code isn't going to be very optimized for a Pentium
(if it even runs at all).
I've heard that -mpentiumpro can be pretty buggy,
Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm... If I have a PII (Actually celeron 300A) or a PIII, which is
better, 'pentium' or 'pentiumpro'? I would think the latter, but I've
I have to admit that I kind of lost track of Intel's Pentium du
jour offerings after the PPro, but I think PII
David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What??? 'pentiumpro' code isn't going to be very optimized for a Pentium
(if it even runs at all).
According to the gcc(1) man page, -mpentiumpro is synonymous to
-mcpu=pentiumpro, which only affects instruction scheduling but
not the actual instruction
-Original Message-
From: Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "David O'Brien" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 15:57:27 -0600
Subject: Re: gcc -Os optimisation broken (RELENG_4)
In the last episode (Mar 15), David O'Brien said:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 10:51:55AM -0600,
At 01:42 PM 3/16/00 +0100, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What??? 'pentiumpro' code isn't going to be very optimized for a Pentium
(if it even runs at all).
According to the gcc(1) man page, -mpentiumpro is synonymous to
-mcpu=pentiumpro, which only
Donn Miller wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
Hmm... If I have a PII (Actually celeron 300A) or a PIII, which is
better, 'pentium' or 'pentiumpro'? I would think the latter, but I've
learned not to assume where gcc is concerned.
I think that 'pentium' would result in code that isn't
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Jeffrey J. Mountin wrote:
Wondering why one would use -mcpu and not -march. If the code runs only on
Celerons, PII's, and PIII's why would one *not* use -march.
I'm curious about (possible) breakages with -mcpu or -march compared to -Ox
settings which seem to break
In the last episode (Mar 15), Maxim Sobolev said:
I've just upgraded my production server to the 4.0-RELEASE and found
that squid23 when compiled with -Os option dying with signal 11 on
each attempt to load page. When I recompiled it with -O fault
disappeared. After some digging into the
Dan Nelson wrote:
In the last episode (Mar 15), Maxim Sobolev said:
I've just upgraded my production server to the 4.0-RELEASE and found
that squid23 when compiled with -Os option dying with signal 11 on
each attempt to load page. When I recompiled it with -O fault
disappeared. After
Dan Nelson wrote:
In the last episode (Mar 15), Maxim Sobolev said:
I've just upgraded my production server to the 4.0-RELEASE and found
that squid23 when compiled with -Os option dying with signal 11 on
each attempt to load page. When I recompiled it with -O fault
disappeared. After
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 10:51:55AM -0600, Dan Nelson wrote:
I get it with -O2 (-Os implies -O2, so it's probably the same problem).
Not quite. -0s == all the -O2 optimizations that do not increase code
size. -Os can also perform other optimizations not part of -O2 that
decrease code size.
In the last episode (Mar 15), David O'Brien said:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 10:51:55AM -0600, Dan Nelson wrote:
I get it with -O2 (-Os implies -O2, so it's probably the same
problem).
Not quite. -0s == all the -O2 optimizations that do not increase
code size. -Os can also perform other
Maxim Sobolev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've just upgraded my production server to the 4.0-RELEASE and found that
squid23 when compiled with -Os option dying with signal 11 on each attempt to
load page. When I recompiled it with -O fault disappeared.
Which brings us back to the popular topic
Christian Weisgerber wrote:
Maxim Sobolev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've just upgraded my production server to the 4.0-RELEASE and found that
squid23 when compiled with -Os option dying with signal 11 on each attempt to
load page. When I recompiled it with -O fault disappeared.
Which
27 matches
Mail list logo
