Tomas Carnecky wrote: > Ben Hodgetts (Enverex) wrote: >> Just in-case anyone was ever curious about how well Wine performs >> with different C/XXFLAGs I did a test today with RC5 to see how much >> of a difference it makes with 3DMark 2001 SE, nothing major but if >> someone can think of a better benchmark to try, please let me know (I >> had hoped to try Oblivion or some such but it has no benchmark feature). >> >> Core2Quad Q9450 @ 3.4Ghz || 4GB PC8500 5-5-5-15 || GCC 4.3.1 || Linux >> 2.6.25 >> 3DMark 2001 SE B300. Wine 1.0-rc5. >> >> 28576 -march=native -O3 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer >> 28522 -march=native -O3 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer >> -mfpmath=sse,387 >> 28511 -march=native -O2 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer >> 28427 -march=native -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -ffast-math >> -funroll-loops -Wall -pipe >> 28426 -march=native -O2 -pipe -mfpmath=sse,387 >> 28311 -march=native -O2 -pipe >> 28270 -march=native -Os -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer >> 28126 -O3 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer >> 28072 Wine Default (-g -O2) >> 27984 -march=native -O3 -pipe >> 27646 -march=native -Os -pipe > > > -pipe only speeds up compilation, not the resulting machine code. > -Wall makes gcc show more warnings about the code and again, it does > not speed up the code. > > tom
I know, I was just listing "all" the flags I was using. Wall was only in there because I copied the CFLAGs from Lame which got a massive boost using a certain set which I copied over entirely. Ben H.