Danek Duvall wrote: > Roland Mainz wrote: > > 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 ? > > I don't understand your question -- why is the build time going to get > longer, or why is a longer build time more painful? Aren't the answers > obvious?
The question is "why are longer build times be painfull" ? For quick development they are painfull but for production binaries performance is IMO more important. I remeber still the case of Mozilla/FireFox which ran with "-xO2" which made the Sun Studio builds _much_ slower than gcc builds (e.g. the builds were more or less unuseeable on an Ultra5 when lots of JavaScript/DOM operations were used ; after the change to -xO4 and other minor tweaks the builds were even useable (but slow) on a SPARCstation5/110MHz). After some time we switched the build over to -xO4 and that solved lots of performance problems (and as a side-effect forced the compiler team to start fixing all the bugs in the C++ compiler which popped-up when higher optimisation levels were used (it took more than half a year to hunt down all the bugs but IMO it was worth the trouble)) ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 3992797 (;O/ \/ \O;)
