Hi All
Having built quite a few LFS systems with great success I have now
decided I would like to compile a highly optimized build. I would
therefore be grateful if anybody would be able to give me advice on the
following optimization strings.
My system is a home grown 3.4 GHz Pentium4 (Prescott)
Athena P wrote these words on 02/10/07 13:04 CST:
> And, finally, in terms of pure performance (speed) is all this
> optimization really worth the effort?
IMHO, a definite no. Not only will you not see the performance
gain in day-to-day use of the system, you'll end up having issues
that you will
"
Or am I missing something?
Many Thanks
Athena
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Randy
McMurchy
Sent: 10 February 2007 19:06
To: LFS Support List
Subject: Re: GCC Optimization
Athena P wrote these words on 02/10/07 13:04 CST:
> And,
Athena P wrote these words on 02/10/07 13:18 CST:
> Surely specifying the CPU architecture is still worth while. For example
> using this string must give speed improvements.
>
> "-O3 -march=prescott -march=prescott -mtune=prescott -mmmx -msse -
> msse2 -msse3 -m3dnow -pipe -mfpmath=sse" -fomit-
I think you know this, but just to make sure, any breakage from
optimization is on you. The LFS books are written the way they are for
exactly the reasons you're asking. With that out of the way...
On 2/10/07, Athena P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Firstly I have successfully built glibc-2.3.6 us
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 07:18:04PM -, Athena P wrote:
> Hi Randy
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> Surely specifying the CPU architecture is still worth while. For example
> using this string must give speed improvements.
>
> "-O3 -march=prescott -march=prescott -mtune=prescott -mmmx -msse -
>
Athena P wrote:
> Hi All
>
I tried compiling the toolchain with various optimisations and further
down the line something always broke, so now I have an unoptimised
toolchain and base. I selectively recompile certain apps for
"performance boosts" (such as the example in this email). I think t
Many Thanks to everyone which replied to my original post, after reading
lots of your comments I get the feeling that most of you disagree with
optimization. To be honest that's cool; however I still believe that
some optimization, specifically the architectural stuff has still got to
be worth try
On 2/10/07, Athena P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Many Thanks to everyone which replied to my original post, after reading
> lots of your comments I get the feeling that most of you disagree with
> optimization. To be honest that's cool; however I still believe that
> some optimization, specifica
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 00:43 +, Athena P wrote:
> Many Thanks to everyone which replied to my original post, after reading
> lots of your comments I get the feeling that most of you disagree with
> optimization. To be honest that's cool; however I still believe that
> some optimization, specific
Rumor has it that Randy McMurchy may have mentioned these words:
>Athena P wrote these words on 02/10/07 13:04 CST:
>
> > And, finally, in terms of pure performance (speed) is all this
> > optimization really worth the effort?
>
>IMHO, a definite no. Not only will you not see the performance
>gain
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ken
Moffat
Sent: 10 February 2007 20:22
To: LFS Support List
Subject: Re: GCC Optimization
>(iii) Impact on your processor's caches - a bigger binary increases
>the pressure on your caches, a
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 12:15:27AM -, Athena P wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ken
> Moffat
> Sent: 10 February 2007 20:22
> To: LFS Support List
> Subject: Re: GCC Optimization
>
>
> >
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ken Moffat
Sent: 16 February 2007 01:07
To: LFS Support List
Subject: Re: GCC Optimization
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 12:15:27AM -, Athena P wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PRO
On 2/15/07, Athena P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My gcc test summary tells me that I have 12 unexpected failures, is this
> considered normal? Or would you need to see the entire test_summary file?
Some of them are expected. They should be listed in the book. I think
for plain x86, there shoul
On Friday 16 February 2007 03:02, Athena P wrote:
> My gcc test summary tells me that I have 12 unexpected failures, is
> this considered normal? Or would you need to see the entire
> test_summary file?
You could compare with logs of a 'normal' build, found at
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/b
16 matches
Mail list logo
