Danek Duvall wrote: > Sriram Natarajan wrote: > > Now, assuming this can be done, does any one have any objections with > > the concept of delivering multiple version (regular and cpu optimized) > > of some critical libraries that are under sfw consolidation ? > > I certainly don't, though generally greater optimization means a longer > build time, which is eventually going to get painful.
Why ? If the application runs a lot faster with a higher optimisation more customers are "happy"/"satisfied" (OkOk... you have to do more testing to verify that the compiler didn't "over-optimize" the application...) ... :-) For example (for a "cheap" optimisation trick) there is the "-xipo" option which offers _significant_ performance benefits (e.g. "-xO4 -xipo=2") at the expense of much longer build time (short: the XIPO (=Interprocedural Optimizer) switch causes the compiler to do inlining and optimisation at the final link step across _all_ files of an application). I wish this switch would be used for most of the applications shipped with Solaris (well, it does not work with OS/Net because "ctfmerge" is unable to handle it (like most other optimisation switches in the compiler... ;-(((( )) ... ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 3992797 (;O/ \/ \O;)
